watermark_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that the tool generates metadata and instructions rather than directly embedding watermarks, and it discloses the output shape and compliance standard. It could add a note about non-modification, but the current wording is clear enough.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds relevant information without fluff.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with only three parameters, and the description covers purpose, parameters, compliance, and return value. An output schema exists and is referenced via the Returns statement. It would benefit from an explicit alternative-tool mention, but it is otherwise complete.

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. The Args section gives meaningful definitions for all three parameters, including valid format examples (mp4, webm, mov) and the meaning of 'generator'. This adds value beyond the bare schema fields.

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 ('Generate watermarking metadata') and resource ('AI-generated videos per Article 50(2)'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling watermark tools that target images, audio, or text. It also adds C2PA compliance context, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool is for AI-generated videos with C2PA-compliant metadata, giving a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for images/audio/text, but the video-specific scope makes the intended use evident.

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