crop_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation at a high level and omits details about whether the input file is overwritten, whether a new output file is created, whether re-encoding occurs, or constraints such as the crop region needing to be within the source bounds. This leaves the agent with insufficient information about side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse, and every word contributes to the meaning. However, this conciseness sacrifices detail.

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 video processing tool with six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the one-sentence description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between x/y and width/height, behavior when the crop region extends beyond the source video, or the nature of the output file. Critical context is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions and defaults (x and y default to 0). The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it receives the baseline score for full schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Crop' and identifies the resource 'video' and the result as 'a rectangular region.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like resize_video, which scales the entire frame, and trim_video, which selects a time range. However, it could be slightly more explicit that this selects a sub-region of the original rather than just any rectangle.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state, for example, that crop_video should be used to remove unwanted edges while resize_video should be used to change overall dimensions. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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