burn_subtitles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the two genuinely important traits — the burn is permanent and the result is a path under SCREENCAST_HOME/edits. It says nothing about processing time, required tooling, failure modes on bad SRT timing, or whether the source video is untouched.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with purpose, accepted inputs, styling, and return value; no filler and no repetition.

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?

Everything needed to invoke it — input, subtitle file, style enum, output default, overwrite semantics, and return value — is covered between the description and the fully documented schema. Only operational edge cases (encoding cost, corrupted subtitles) are absent.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the enum for style is exhaustively explained in-schema (including the default). The description only echoes the style choice and font bundling, adding little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Burn subtitles ... permanently into a video") and names the upstream producer ("an SRT from transcribe"), which implicitly separates it from transcribe and from other video-mutation siblings. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with any alternative like overlay or convert.

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 the prerequisite (an existing SRT/ASS file, e.g. from transcribe) but never states when to choose this over other compositing tools such as overlay, or what happens if the input has no matching subtitle timing. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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