fade_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the operation and does not clarify duration units, whether the input video is modified or a new file is produced, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a transformation tool.

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 clear sentence with no redundant phrasing. The core action is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent. It omits input format expectations, units, and the nature of the result, though the simple parameter set slightly mitigates the incompleteness.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning of fade_in, fade_out, or input_video beyond matching the fade concepts. It fails to communicate units (e.g., seconds) or that the default values are already applied, leaving the agent to infer crucial details.

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 states a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('video fade-in and fade-out'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The explicit mention of 'video' distinguishes it from the sibling tool fade_audio without ambiguity.

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 description implies when to use this tool through the word 'video', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as fade_audio or crossfade_videos, nor does it state any exclusions. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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