Compress video

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds useful behavioral details: bitrate is computed from duration when a target size is given, and omitting it triggers quality-based compression. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting, codec choices, lossy vs. lossless) or limitations, leaving some behavioral burden unmet.

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 grammatically efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by necessary parameter details. No wasted words and the structure is highly scannable.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core decision (target size vs. quality) and gives sufficient context to invoke correctly. It could mention output_path defaults, but overall it's complete enough for an agent to proceed.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining how target_size_mb drives bitrate calculation and clarifying the default behavior when omitted. This adds meaningful semantics for parameter usage.

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 ('Shrink') and clearly identifies the resource ('video's file size'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes from siblings like 'convert_video' or 'resize_video' by focusing on file-size reduction rather than format or dimensions.

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 implies when to use the tool ('Shrink a video's file size') but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It gives brief parameter usage context (target size vs. quality-based) but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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