Rotate / flip video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the parameter meanings from the schema and does not mention output path defaults when output_path is omitted, whether the input is modified, or any return values/prerequisites.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 is simple, but the description omits critical contextual behavior: output_path is optional in the schema but the description doesn't explain what happens when omitted. It also doesn't clarify behavior when neither degrees nor flip is provided, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (input_path, output_path, degrees, flip) are already well-documented with names, types, and enums. The description adds little beyond the schema except the 'clockwise' and 'and/or' combination wording, providing no new semantic meaning.

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 specifies the exact operation: rotating a video by 90/180/270 degrees clockwise and/or mirroring horizontally or vertically. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resize_video or crop_video.

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 implies usage for video orientation and mirroring adjustments, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Given the large sibling set, more explicit usage context would be helpful.

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