merge_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the auto-scaling behavior to handle different resolutions and codecs, which is valuable context. However, it does not explain whether this involves re-encoding, potential quality loss, or other side effects that could affect the user's expectations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant filler. Every word earns its place.

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 relatively simple and the schema covers both parameters well, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete by mentioning the output format or any limitations. It covers the core behavior but leaves some contextual gaps.

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 provides thorough descriptions for both parameters, including relative/absolute path resolution and ordering. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema covers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool concatenates two or more video files into one in a given order, using the specific verb 'concatenate'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that trim, convert, resize, or otherwise manipulate single videos.

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 clear context that this tool is for joining videos in a specified order, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The usage is obvious from the purpose, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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