arvan_vod_create_subtitle

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, which aligns with 'create'. The description adds an example of the fields parameter but does not disclose other behaviors like idempotency or error cases. With annotations present, the description provides marginal additional 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 very short with one sentence and an example, no wasted words. However, it is almost too minimal; slightly more structure could improve readability.

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?

With two parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotation support, the description is incomplete. It does not explain supported languages, response format, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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%. The description partially compensates by providing an example for the 'fields' parameter, but 'video_id' remains undescribed. The example adds some meaning beyond the schema, but overall parameter documentation is weak.

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 creates a subtitle for a video, with a helpful example. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like arvan_vod_create_audio or arvan_vod_create_watermark, which also create VOD resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or when-not-to-use. The description is purely functional.

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