Resize video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior (aspect ratio preservation when one dimension is omitted, percentage scaling), but does not address edge cases such as mutual exclusivity of percent vs dimensions, what happens if neither is given, or the optionality of output_path.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence conveys the core functionality and key usage constraints. Every word earns its place with no redundant 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 resizing tool with a schema that explains all parameters, the description is largely complete. It does not elaborate on output behavior or format support, but these are inferable and not critical for this operation.

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 a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between width/height ('missing one keeps aspect ratio') and offering a percentage alternative, which is not fully explicit in the schema.

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 action ('Scale a video') and the resource ('video'), specifying the outcome ('new resolution'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crop_video or compress_video by focusing on resolution scaling.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like crop_video or compress_video. The description only explains how to provide dimensions, not the situational context or exclusions.

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