video_extract_sound_triggers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it writes files, whether it is expensive/slow on long videos, or what the result looks like. The parenthetical trigger categories give a hint about output content, but nothing about side effects, determinism, or cost.

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 no filler, which is structurally clean. But for a 10-parameter tool with a nested config object, one sentence is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and the parenthetical list of jargon terms is dense without being explanatory.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 10 parameters at 0% coverage, and a nested object, the description should explain the config structure, the zoom_mode enum, and at least the shape of the return value. It provides none of this, so an agent cannot reliably construct a call or anticipate the result.

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% across 10 parameters, including an opaque nested 'config' object and an unexplained 'zoom_mode' enum (off/major_only/probabilistic/musical_subtle/all). The description's parenthetical categories loosely map to enable_bar_fills and the zoom_* parameters, but 'config', 'max_frames', 'include_catalog', and the enum semantics are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess.

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 and resource ('Extracts ... movement-to-sound triggers') and lists the concrete trigger categories (bar fills, zooms, HUD ticks, risers, bursts), so an agent can tell this is a video-to-trigger-extraction tool rather than a converter or analyzer. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as video_detect_bar_fills or video_detect_stroke_draws, whose functionality appears to be folded in as options here.

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 use this tool versus video_detect_bar_fills, video_detect_stroke_draws, video_analyze_motion, or video_sync_motion_to_audio, despite clear functional overlap. No prerequisites, exclusions, or input requirements (e.g., video format, cost) are given.

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