Create video card

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains why streaming pages fail (video element pointed at a player page), which is useful behavioral context蓬莱. However, it doesn't mention the output/card format, side effects, or limits on file size. The main behavioral constraint (source type) is well-covered, but other runtime behavior is not described.

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?

Two sentences. The first immediately states the action and the key constraint. The second explains the rejection rule and points to the alternatve tool. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the essential constraint on src, which is the most error-prone parameter, and named the sibling tool for animations. It doesn't describe the return value, but an output schema exists. Minor gap: no mention of required vs optional fields like title, but the schema lists required. Good overall.

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 schema explains 5 of 9 parameters (src, poster, autoplay, contextActions; loop and muted have only type). The description adds critical detail for src (direct video file only, reject streaming URLs) and ties to the card rendering. That compensates for the low schema coverage on the most important param, but the others remain thin. A middle score is fair.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Render a card with an HTML video player for a short clip.' It immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the target format (video file) and the explicit exclusion of streaming-platform URLs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It states the hard constraint: src must be a direct video file, and explicitly lists what is rejected (streaming URLs) with the reasoning. It also names the alternative tool (create_animation_card) and the condition for using it, so an agent can classify inputs correctly.

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