convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the stream-copy behavior when codecs are omitted and a recommended crf default, which are non-obvious behavioral details. However, it omits critical mutation semantics: whether the output file is overwritten, whether directories are created, error handling, and any permission or environment requirements.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by operational rules. Every sentence adds concrete guidance with no filler, though the ordering could slightly better group codec-related tips.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, stream-copy behavior, and a crf suggestion. It still leaves out preset semantics, overwrite behavior, and error conditions, so an agent would need to infer or probe those aspects before calling it confidently.

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 low (33%): only input and audio_codec have descriptions, while crf, preset, and video_codec lack explanatory text. The description partially compensates by explaining the crf default and the omit-to-copy rule for codecs, but it leaves preset values and output overwrite behavior unexplained, so the added meaning is incomplete for a six-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Change container or codec'), making the tool's core function unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like extract_audio or resize, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to recognize when a general media conversion is needed.

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 gives one important usage rule: omitting video_codec/audio_codec triggers stream-copy for that stream. It also offers a default crf suggestion, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., use extract_audio for audio-only extraction) or when not to use it.

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