translate_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the model used and the public URL requirement, but does not disclose whether the operation is asynchronous, how the result is returned, potential costs/latency, or any side effects. For a complex video processing tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 opens with a clear purpose statement, then uses bullet points for parameters and a compact list for languages. The language list is necessary but adds length; overall it's well-structured and not wasteful.

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?

The tool is complex (video translation with lip sync), and the description covers inputs, model, and language support. However, it omits operational details like output format, processing time, video size limits, or error conditions. Since an output schema exists, return value explanation is less critical, but other contextual gaps remain.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so effectively: video_url must be publicly accessible, target_language is an abbreviation, and src_language defaults to "zh". It also provides a list of supported language codes. This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's specific function: translating speech in a video into a target language while syncing lip movements. This specific verb+resource (translate video + sync lips) distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_video or image_to_video, which create new content rather than transform existing speech.

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?

The description provides clear context on how to use the tool: requires a publicly accessible video URL and target language, with an optional source language. It also lists supported language codes. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. This is close to 'clear context, no exclusions' but lacks explicit alternative differentiation.

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