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 one behavioral trait: aspect ratio is preserved when only one dimension is given. However, it does not mention other potentially relevant behaviors like output overwrite semantics, format/codec implications, or what happens when both dimensions are provided (e.g., distortion). This is a notable gap given the lack of annotations.

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, immediately stating the action ('Resize/scale a video') and adding one essential detail about aspect ratio. No redundant words or filler; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 resize tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core function, parameter flexibility, and a key behavioral aspect. It lacks some finer details (e.g., effects of providing both dimensions, file handling), but given the tool's simplicity and the fact that output is implied by output_path, 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?

The schema description coverage is 50%, with only input_path and output_path described. The description adds meaning by explaining that width and height can be provided individually or together and clarifies aspect ratio behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that width/height are optional (though inferred from the sentence) or define units. It partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions but not fully.

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 explicitly states 'Resize/scale a video' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like crop_video or rotate_video. The mention of width/height and aspect ratio preservation adds precision.

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 use for resizing/scaling but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when-not-to-use. The 'Provide width, height, or both' is more parameter guidance than contextual usage guidance, and no exclusions or sibling alternatives are mentioned.

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