stabilize_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'applies video stabilization,' implying a mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it modifies the original clip or creates a new one, permission requirements, processing time, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that alters media.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and benefit, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (mutating video media with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the output (e.g., returns a stabilized clip ID or modifies in-place), error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all parameters (clipId, method with enum, smoothness range). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('applies') and resource ('video stabilization'), explaining it reduces camera shake. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'apply_effect' or 'color_correct' that might also modify video clips, missing full sibling differentiation.

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 this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a clip ID), exclusions (e.g., not for audio clips), or compare to other video processing tools in the sibling list, leaving usage context unclear.

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