reframe

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 destructive-ish implication of 'crop' ('trims the overflow') and that pad loses nothing, plus that an output path is returned. It omits whether the source is modified, re-encoding/quality effects, and audio handling, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the mode semantics, then the return value. No filler and nothing buried.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, mode behavior, and the returned output path, which is enough to call it correctly. It could say more about overwrite/replace semantics and source preservation, but the essentials are present.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries a rich description, so the baseline is 3. The description's explanation of pad/crop largely restates the 'fit' enum description and says nothing about 'output' or 'overwrite' beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource ('Re-aspect a video to a target ratio') and enumerates the supported ratios, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'crop' or 'scale', which could plausibly be reached for the same goal.

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 explains the pad-vs-crop trade-off ('nothing is lost' vs 'fills the frame and trims the overflow'), which is useful decision guidance for the 'fit' choice. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'crop' or 'scale', and states no prerequisites beyond a required input.

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