Reframe video

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds key behavioral context: it's a paid render, uses smart subject tracking, and returns a served URL. No contradictions with annotations. Some details like rate limits or failure modes are omitted, but overall it provides useful transparency beyond 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 sentences; the first sentence immediately states the action and key feature, the second adds cost and output. No redundant words, perfectly 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?

Given an output schema exists (not shown but present), the description appropriately focuses on behavior. It mentions the return value (served URL) and key trait (paid render). Could be more explicit about whether the operation is synchronous or if there are job status implications, but for a straightforward reframe, it's nearly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds an example (16:9 to 9:16) that helps users understand the aspectRatio parameter's purpose. It doesn't add syntax details but the example is a meaningful supplement.

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 a specific verb ('Reframe') and resource ('video'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by specifying aspect ratio change and smart subject tracking. The example (16:9 master → 9:16 vertical) further clarifies the action.

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 when to use this tool (when needing aspect ratio conversion) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among the many sibling video tools. The 'paid render' note gives some context but lacks guidance on prerequisites or comparison.

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