resize_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Resize a video' and gives examples. It does not disclose what happens if both width+height and scale are provided, whether the output overwrites the input, or the meaning of an empty output_path.

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 short, front-loaded, and easy to scan, with helpful examples. It earns its place without excessive padding, though a small structured note on path parameters would improve it.

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 five parameters and no annotations, this is incomplete: it omits precedence rules, path behavior, and what the output represents. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the remaining ambiguities are material for correct invocation.

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. It does explain the alternatives among scale, width, and height with examples, but it leaves input_path and output_path semantics implicit and does not clarify defaults or parameter constraints.

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 operation ('Resize a video') and the resource it acts on, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like crop_video or rotate_video, though the term 'resize' is reasonably self-explanatory.

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?

It provides no guidance on when to choose resize_video over alternative tools; no exclusions or sibling comparisons are given. The 'use either width+height or scale' note is parameter usage, not tool selection guidance.

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