video_convert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does convey meaningful behavior: frame-coherence, that audio is preserved or a custom WAV muxed, and what artifact is produced. However, it never states that the tool writes/overwrites a file at output_path, says nothing about processing duration for long videos, or what happens when both keep_source_audio and audio_wav are supplied.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then qualifies the option space. It earns its length, though the tail clause ('keeping original audio or muxing a custom WAV') is compressed enough that the interaction between the two audio parameters is never disambiguated.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 77% of parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. Decisions the agent cannot make from the provided text — resolution control (width vs factor vs upscale), resample meaning, and frame-limiting via max_frames — are exactly the ones a video pipeline needs.

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 only 23% (13 params, 4 described), so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies presets, palette/dither, the 12 Reel styles, and the keep_source_audio vs audio_wav pairing. But width, factor, upscale, resample, and max_frames are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess at the most consequential tuning knobs.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Converts') with a specific resource ('a video file') and enumerates the output options (MP4/GIF) and styling sources (PixelForge presets, custom palette/dither, 12 Reel styles). It is clearly distinguishable from image-focused siblings like image_convert or image_stylize_reel, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this over image_convert, image_stylize_reel, or export_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name and the input-file requirement that this is the video-domain conversion path.

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