convert_video_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the input/output paths and return value, and makes it clear it saves a new file. However, it does not disclose whether existing output files are overwritten, any dependencies on external tools (e.g., ffmpeg), or potential lengthy processing for large videos.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a structured Args block. It is longer than ideal but all 11 parameters are meaningfully described, so the length is justified. No filler or redundant content beyond necessary parameter documentation.

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 (11 parameters), the description covers all parameters and the return value, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It lacks examples of complete calls, notes on parameter combinations, or constraints (e.g., matching codecs to format), but the presence of an output schema partially compensates for return value expectations.

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 0% description coverage, but the description thoroughly explains every parameter with examples and optionality. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema types, making it easy for an agent to construct valid arguments.

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 it converts video file format and all specified properties like resolution, codecs, bitrates, and frame rate, which distinguishes it from single-property sibling tools. The verb 'converts' plus the resource 'video file' makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 it is a comprehensive converter for multiple properties at once, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over the individual set_* tools. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the context is only inferred from the tool's name and purpose.

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