stitch_videos

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 only mentions 'with FFmpeg', giving a minor implementation hint, but does not explain whether files are re-encoded by default, what happens with incompatible formats, whether output files are overwritten, or any system requirements. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool that manipulates video files.

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, direct sentence that conveys the core action without any redundant or filler content. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 lack of annotations and schema descriptions, the description should provide comprehensive context. It does not cover important aspects such as how the stitching works (e.g., concat vs. re-encoding), potential failure modes, codec/format compatibility, or prerequisites like FFmpeg installation. The presence of an output schema is acknowledged in the signals, but the description still leaves critical gaps for a tool with multiple parameters and complex behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides some context for 'input_paths' (local video files) and 'output_path' (output file) but says nothing about the 'reencode' parameter or its impact. Key details about expected formats, ffmpeg-specific flags, or constraints are entirely absent, leaving the agent to guess at parameter usage.

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 ('Stitch') and resource ('local video files') and output ('one output file'). It distinctly differs from the sibling generation tools, which create new media rather than assemble existing files.

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 the tool is for merging existing local video files, in contrast to the generation-focused siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria, such as codec compatibility requirements.

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