normalize_media

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed-world), while the description supplies substantial behavioral context: CPU-only execution avoiding the GPU lock, exact output codec/rate/color/pixel-format, rotation normalization, metadata stripping, odd-dimension padding, and audio stream handling. The remaining gap is that it never says whether the job is queued asynchronously and how completion is observed (presumably via job_status), which matters for a queueing 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?

Front-loaded with the action in the first sentence, followed by a dense but entirely informative paragraph on output characteristics and the downstream consumer. Every sentence carries call-relevant information; nothing is redundant with the annotations or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the safety annotations cover the mutation profile. The description is complete on output format and downstream use, but the unexplained job_id parameter and unstated async/completion mechanics leave a small gap for a queued job tool.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates only partially: it explains fps behavior in depth (source average rate default, snapped to a standard rate within 2%), which adds meaning beyond the schema's format examples. media_path and especially job_id receive no explanation at all, leaving the idempotency/resume semantics of job_id undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Queue conversion of a video') plus the shape of the result ('render-ready copy'). It also implicitly separates itself from GPU-bound siblings by noting it runs on CPU without the GPU lock, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied through the pipeline note that the result's media_path is 'usable in submit_swap', which tells an agent where this sits relative to a sibling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of inspect_media or upload_media as upstream steps, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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