Crop video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only or mutating, what happens to the original file, any encoding or output dimensions behavior, or error conditions. The only added behavioral hint is the coordinate interpretation, which is more of a parameter detail than a behavioral disclosure.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It leads with the main action, provides a necessary coordinate clarification, and is highly scannable for an AI agent.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and complete schema descriptions, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit statement that the output will be the cropped region (though this is obvious from the name and output_path parameter), but for a straightforward crop operation with a 100% schema coverage, it is adequately contextualized.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a small clarification that x/y is the top-left corner of the region to keep, which reinforces the schema's 'Left edge' and 'Top edge' descriptions. No additional parameter semantics beyond this are provided, but the schema already handles parameter meanings well.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Crop a rectangular region out of the video frame.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like resize_video (which scales the entire frame) by focusing on removing a region, and the detail about x/y as the top-left corner reinforces the crop semantics.

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 this tool (when you need to crop a rectangular region) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as resize_video or trim_video. There is no mention of exclusions or comparison with sibling tools.

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