crop_video

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and does not disclose coordinate origin, whether the crop is performed in place or creates a new file, the role of the optional output_path, or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. The core action and the key qualifier 'pixel coordinates' are front-loaded, making it appropriately compact for this tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given six parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, this description is insufficiently complete. It lacks coordinate semantics, output path behavior, and any guidance on how the cropped video is returned or stored. The presence of an output schema may cover return shape, but it does not cover the missing behavioral and parameter detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds only the general hint that the coordinates are pixel-based, but it does not explain which corner x1/y1 and x2/y2 represent, coordinate system origin, or the meanings of input_path and output_path.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'crop' with the resource 'video' and adds 'pixel coordinates', which distinguishes it from time-based operations like trim_video and dimension-based operations like resize_video. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or define the coordinate frame.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage context is only implied: an agent can infer to use this tool when a video needs cropping by pixel coordinates. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools are better alternatives for related tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.