set_trigger_video

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 lists parameter choices and constraints but does not state that this is a mutating configuration tool, whether acquisition must be stopped, what existing trigger settings are affected, or what happens on invalid values.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the trigger type, then lists parameter details. It is somewhat dense and uses non-standard formatting, but it avoids filler and stays appropriately short.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It covers several parameter constraints but omits source and extra, gives no usage guidance, and adds no behavioral context. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents allowed values and constraints for mode, polarity, line, level, and standard, but it omits the source and extra parameters and does not fully define the 'extra' object.

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 says only 'Video trigger' without an explicit verb, so the action (set/configure) must be inferred from the tool name. It does identify the specific trigger type, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling trigger setters in prose.

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 guidance on when to use this video trigger versus edge, pulse-width, slope, runt, window, or other trigger tools. No prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are given.

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