resize-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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('resize a video') but doesn't describe what happens (e.g., creates new files, overwrites existing ones, requires specific permissions, or has performance/rate limits). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('resize a video') and adds clarifying detail ('to one or more standard resolutions'). Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying scope and output.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output format. For a video processing tool, more context on file formats, processing time, or result location would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'standard resolutions', which aligns with the enum in the schema but doesn't provide additional context like aspect ratio preservation or quality settings. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'resize' and resource 'video', specifying it converts to 'standard resolutions'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'extract-audio' or 'get-video-info' by focusing on resolution transformation rather than extraction or metadata retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get-ffmpeg-version' is clearly different).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., video file format compatibility), when not to use it (e.g., for non-standard resolutions), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'extract-audio' for audio-only processing. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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