Compress video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that bitrate is computed from duration and that omitting target size triggers quality-based compression. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing files, default output behavior, or codec choices, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Shrink a video's file size'). Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 description adequately covers the tool's core functionality and both usage modes despite the lack of annotations and output schema. It omits some operational details (e.g., default output path, error conditions), but for a straightforward compression tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for target_size_mb by explaining the bitrate-duration relationship and the optionality behavior, which goes beyond the schema's simple description. This adds real value.

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 states 'Shrink a video's file size' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like resize_video or trim_video. This is unambiguous and immediately communicates the tool's function.

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 context on how to use the tool, describing two modes (target size in MB or quality-based compression) and explaining the bitrate computation. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus specific siblings, so it lacks direct exclusions or alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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