Change playback speed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key non-obvious behavior: audio pitch is preserved. However, it does not mention side effects like file overwriting or what happens if output_path is omitted, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the main action, the second clarifies the factor parameter with concrete examples. Very efficient.

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 simple transformation tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and factor semantics. It lacks details on output behavior or potential side effects, but these are less critical for a speed change operation.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful semantics for 'factor' with examples. It does not explain output_path beyond the schema, but the factor explanation is a valuable addition.

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 verb and resource: 'Speed up or slow down a video.' It also provides concrete factor examples (2 = twice as fast, 0.5 = half speed) that distinguish it from sibling tools like trim_video or convert_video.

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?

Usage is implied (when you need to change playback speed), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It doesn't mention that other tools handle time-based edits differently.

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