video_trim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds important context beyond basic functionality: it discloses monetary cost ($0.05) and access restrictions (Tier 1+ requirement). While it doesn't mention rate limits, processing time, or output format, it provides crucial operational constraints for a paid service.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core functionality first, followed by operational constraints. Every word earns its place with no redundant information or fluff.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by including cost and access requirements. However, it doesn't describe what happens after trimming (e.g., where the trimmed video is stored, format preservation, or how to retrieve results), leaving some gaps in operational understanding.

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%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (like format details for media_url or validation rules for time values), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('trim') and resource ('video'), specifying the operation is limited to 'a specific time range'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like video_merge (which combines videos) and ai_edit (which might involve more complex editing).

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 clear context about when to use this tool by mentioning cost and tier requirements ('Cost: $0.05. Requires Tier 1+'), which helps determine feasibility. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives for similar video editing tasks among siblings.

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