Resize video

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects or edge cases. It explains the scaling modes and aspect ratio behavior, but does not state what happens if both dimensions are provided (possible distortion) or where the output file is written if output_path is missing. This incomplete transparency is a gap.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds useful information. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, but the schema itself documents each parameter. The description ties together the main scaling modes and aspect ratio logic. However, it omits output behavior and mutual exclusivity details, making it slightly incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 adds value by explaining the relationship between width and height (missing one preserves aspect ratio) and framing percent as an alternative to dimensions, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 'Scale a video to a new resolution' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like crop_video by focusing on scaling, not cropping. The mention of width/height/percent further clarifies its scope.

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 clear instructions on how to resize via width/height/percent and notes that the missing dimension preserves aspect ratio, providing contextual usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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