stabilize_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the intended effect but does not reveal whether the operation modifies the clip destructively, what happens to existing stabilization, whether it is reversible, or what the return value is. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded and free of filler. It communicates the core function efficiently.

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?

Despite complete parameter schema, there is no output schema or annotations, and the description is too brief to explain operational context like whether the clip is modified in place or a new clip is created. For a mutating video operation, this leaves important 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?

All three parameters (clipId, method, smoothness) are already described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, such as the meaning of 'warp' vs 'subspace' or the effect of the smoothness range, so it does not go beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool's function: applying video stabilization to a clip. The verb 'applies' and resource 'video stabilization' are specific. There is no other stabilization tool among siblings, so it distinctively identifies the operation.

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 stabilization versus other clip operations, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is self-evident, but there is no explicit usage context.

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