stabilize_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says stabilization is applied but does not indicate whether this is destructive, reversible, whether it modifies the original clip or creates a new one, or what side effects occur. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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 with no filler, but it is arguably too terse given the lack of annotations. It earns its place but leaves out important context.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is not sufficient. An agent cannot fully determine side effects, success criteria, or whether the operation is safe/reversible. This is materially under-specified.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the enum values 'warp' and 'subspace' are listed but their practical difference is not explained, and 'smoothness' has a range but no behavioral guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('applies') with a clear resource ('video stabilization' on a clip) and states the intended effect ('reduce camera shake'). This distinguishes it from sibling clip tools that perform other transformations.

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 phrase 'to reduce camera shake' implies the use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool covers stabilization, so the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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