change_aspect_ratio

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the output behavior ('save the video with the new aspect ratio') and the resize mode/padding color options, but it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), error conditions, or performance considerations. It is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args breakdown and a Returns note. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence serves a purpose, and the formatting aids readability. It earns a 4 for being informative without excessive fluff.

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 (video processing) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the essential inputs, output path, mode, color, and return value. It does not mention error handling, required codecs, or side effects, but for a 5-parameter tool with an output schema, this is reasonably complete. The description sufficiently grounds an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has no descriptions for any parameters (0% coverage), so the description's Args section provides crucial meaning. It explains each parameter, including examples for target_aspect_ratio ('16:9', '4:3', '1:1'), defaults for resize_mode and padding_color, and the purpose of each argument. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 primary function with a specific verb and resource: 'Changes the aspect ratio of a video, using padding or cropping.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_video_resolution or trim_video. The two methods (pad/crop) and example ratios add further specificity.

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 explains what the tool does and the two resize modes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons with related video tools, so the usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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