Reverse video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses a key behavioral trait: it buffers the entire clip in memory. It also notes the audio is reversed, adding context the schema doesn't provide. It doesn't cover every edge case but offers meaningful transparency for a simple tool.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately provide the practical caveat. No redundant wording 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main operation, the memory constraint, and the recommended workflow. It could mention what happens when output_path is omitted, but the schema already clarifies the parameter is optional.

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%, providing clear descriptions for both input_path and output_path. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond referring to trimming, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 ('play') and resource ('video and audio') to clearly define the reverse operation. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like trim_video or change_speed by focusing on backward playback.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'best for short clips' and recommends trimming first for longer content, which is a clear when-to-use and an implied when-not-to-use with an alternative (trim). This goes beyond general context.

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