Trim video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains time formats and the logical relationship between start/end/duration, but does not disclose whether the operation overwrites the original file, whether it re-encodes by default, or other side effects. Some behavior is left to the schema (fast_copy), so the description offers moderate transparency.

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, zero fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the input combination rules are stated compactly and clearly.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core logic well. It does not explain return values, but that's unnecessary without an output schema. It could benefit from noting default re-encoding behavior, but the schema covers fast_copy and output_path, so gaps are minor.

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 valuable semantics beyond individual property descriptions by explaining the relationships: start plus either end or duration, and the omit-both case. Time format examples also help agents construct valid values.

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+resource ('Cut a video down to a time range') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like concat_videos or convert_video. It also provides immediate substance on how the cutting is specified (start/end/duration).

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 usage context: how to specify start time and either end or duration, and behavior when omitting both. However, it does not mention any alternatives or when not to use this tool, stopping short of a 5.

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