segment_video_camera_shots

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about automatically checking for existing shot segmentation jobs before creating new ones, reinforcing idempotency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, cost implications, or rate limits beyond what annotations provide, so the description adds only modest value.

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 concise at four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the main function, mentioning auto-checking, describing output, and listing URL constraints. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details.

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 single parameter with full schema coverage, the description adequately covers usage context: supported URL types, output summary, and idempotent behavior. It lacks details on error handling or output structure, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the brief mention of 'timestamps and metadata'.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already provides exhaustive detail about the 'url' parameter, including examples and format options. The tool description reiterates some of this information (supported URLs, YouTube exclusion) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 purpose: 'Segment videos into camera shots with intelligent cost optimization.' It specifies the action (segment), the resource (videos into camera shots), and the output (timestamps and metadata). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'segment_video_chapters,' which segments by chapters instead of shots.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool, including supported URL formats and a clear exclusion: 'YouTube URLs are not supported for segmentation.' It also mentions automatic checking for existing jobs, implying idempotent usage. However, it does not directly compare with alternatives like segment_video_chapters or describe scenarios where one segmentation type is preferred over another.

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