transform_video

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

Annotations provide minimal info (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It reveals that motion, timing, etc. are preserved and that turbo mode offers faster generation at lower quality. However, it lacks disclosure of limitations (e.g., maximum video length, supported input formats) or side effects beyond the stated transformations.

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 well-organized with a lead sentence, model breakdown, and a bullet list of parameters. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be condensed slightly, but overall efficient.

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 10 parameters, no nested objects, and an existing output schema, the description covers all parameters and model usage. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., pre-uploaded files), potential error conditions, or integration with sibling tools like upload_file. Nearly complete, with minor gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving all parameter meaning to the description. The description provides thorough inline explanations for all 10 parameters, including details on reference count constraints per model and optional instruction prompt. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specifies it is a video-to-video transform using reference images. It distinguishes two models (p-video-animate and p-video-replace) with different use cases, which differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_video or edit_image.

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 explains when to use each model based on number of references and what is preserved (motion, timing, etc.). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for other scenarios, which would strengthen guidance.

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