set_video_frame_rate

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

The description discloses that the tool 'attempt[s] to copy the audio stream,' which is a useful behavioral trait not evident from the schema, and it states the return format ('A status message indicating success or failure'). However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does not explain potential side effects (e.g., what happens if audio copying fails, whether the input file is preserved, or if the frame rate change alters video duration or speed). This 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 efficiently structured with a clear one-line purpose, an Args block, and a Returns note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague content. The length is appropriate for a three-parameter tool.

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?

For a simple setter tool, the description covers the operation, parameters, and return type. It does not address edge cases (e.g., invalid frame rates, what 'attempting to copy audio' implies for the output), but given the simple nature and existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. A 5 would require additional behavioral detail on failure scenarios or prerequisites.

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 provides zero parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: input_video_path, output_video_path, and frame_rate. It even gives examples for frame_rate (24, 30, 60). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema and makes correct invocation straightforward.

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: 'Sets the frame rate of a video' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it copies the audio stream, which is not mentioned in sibling tools like set_video_resolution or convert_video_properties. The resource is unambiguous and action is precise.

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 establishes clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the frame rate of a video needs to be changed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool recommendations (e.g., convert_video_properties for broader changes). The context is clear but exclusions are absent, so it does not reach a 5.

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