set_video_resolution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the fact that it attempts to copy the audio stream and returns a status message, but it does not detail failure scenarios, required codecs, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clean argument list and return value note. Every word contributes to clarity without redundancy.

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?

All required parameters are described, and the return value is indicated. Minor gaps exist around error handling and edge cases (e.g., unsupported resolution formats), but overall it is sufficient for a straightforward video-processing tool with an output schema.

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 no descriptions, so the tool description fully documents all three parameters with clear purposes and examples (e.g., resolution formats). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, making it easy to construct correct inputs.

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 resolution of a video' with the added detail of attempting to copy the audio stream. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_video_bitrate or set_video_frame_rate, which target other properties.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as change_aspect_ratio or convert_video_properties. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the user to infer usage solely from the tool's name and basic description.

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