convert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose codec choices (H.264, VP9, palette filter) and that the return value is an output path, which is real added value. It omits the mutation profile — no mention of file overwrite semantics (only in schema), whether a new file is always created, whether SCREENCAST_HOME/edits is created, or how long a transcode might take.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the actionable information: what it does and what it returns. Nothing is wasted and no filler adjectives are present.

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?

With full schema coverage and an explicit return-value sentence, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly. The gap is routing context — given seven-plus sibling tools that also produce output files, the description should have stated the selection rule, but that is a usage gap rather than a missing operational fact.

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 all six parameters already carry documentation, including defaults, ranges, and the gif-only constraint on fps/width. The description adds only codec background that the format enum description also restates, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Convert a video') plus the exact format set (mp4, gif, webm), which is concrete enough to act on. It does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as export_gif or export_preset, which also produce gif/formatted output, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 never says when to choose this over export_gif, export_preset, or compress, all of which sit in the same sibling list. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention that gif-only parameters (fps, width) are ignored for mp4/webm in this text.

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