merge_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does provide transparency into the operational steps (decompose into frames/audio, batch frames, combine audio, reassemble). However, it omits important behavioral details such as whether input videos must have matching resolutions, how incompatible audio modes are handled, or potential performance/memory implications. It adds some process context but lacks significant limitations or 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence immediately states the purpose, followed by a short, clear explanation of the process. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or superfluous details. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the complexity of video merging, the description provides a high-level overview that, combined with the rich input schema and presence of an output schema, is mostly complete. However, it lacks context about video compatibility constraints (e.g., resolution, codec, frame rate) and edge cases, which could be important for the agent to decide invocation parameters or anticipate failures. Still, it covers the essential operation and process adequately.

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 the input schema already fully documents all four parameters including their types, defaults, and descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Merge multiple videos into a single video.' It also explains the internal process of decomposing, batching, and reassembling, which distinguishes it from video generation tools like text_to_video or image_to_video. The purpose is unambiguous and well differentiated from siblings.

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 (merging videos) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention differences from video generation or editing tools. The context is clear from the name and description, but no alternative comparisons or prerequisites are given.

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