convert_aspect_ratio

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. It does not disclose that output_path is written, whether input_path is modified, how crop vs pad affects content, or what dry_run does.

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. It is efficiently sized, though its terseness contributes to gaps elsewhere rather than being a conciseness problem itself.

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 mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits file-path semantics, dry-run behavior, output/overwrite behavior, and mode trade-offs.

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%, and the description only clarifies the aspect_ratio and mode parameters via examples. It says nothing about input_path, output_path, or the important dry_run flag, leaving three of five parameters undocumented.

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 (Reframe) and resource (video), and enumerates target aspect ratios and modes. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as trim_clip, but the purpose is immediately clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor when to choose crop versus pad. The description implies its use for aspect-ratio conversion but leaves alternatives and conditions unstated.

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