freeze_frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not explain what happens to the rest of the video, whether the output is a new video, whether duration is inserted or replaced, or how audio is affected. Those are material behavior gaps for a video-mutation 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the main idea immediately, but its brevity omits necessary context, so it is concise rather than complete.

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 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this short description is insufficient. An agent is left guessing about time units, video output behavior, parameter semantics, and edge cases. The definition needs more detail to be safely invocable.

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 must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It weakly implies freeze_time selects the frame and freeze_duration controls the hold length, but it does not clarify units, allowed ranges, or the meaning of input_video. The default freeze_duration of 2 is also not explained.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Freeze a selected frame and hold it for a duration.' This clearly conveys a video-editing freeze operation and distinguishes it from the sibling extract_frame, which would not 'hold' the frame. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. It is only a statement of what the tool does, not when an agent should choose it over related tools like extract_frame or create_zoom_animation.

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