trim_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the basic operation and return message but does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting existing output files, whether the input file is modified, codec compatibility, or dependencies like ffmpeg. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a file-modifying 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?

The description is front-loaded with a single-sentence summary of the operation, followed by a structured Args list and Returns line. Every sentence provides necessary information with no filler. It is well-organized and appropriately sized for a 4-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?

The description covers all parameters and the return value, making it sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks context on edge cases (e.g., invalid time ranges), overwrite behavior, or prerequisites. Since an output schema exists, return details are not needed, but the omission of potential failure modes and operational nuances leaves it slightly incomplete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, only listing parameter names and types. The description compensates fully by detailing each parameter, including the role of video_path and output_video_path and the accepted formats for start_time and end_time (HH:MM:SS or seconds). This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema.

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 action "Trims a video to the specified start and end times" with a specific resource (video) and parameters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_video_resolution or change_video_speed, which handle different aspects of video editing.

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 the use case (creating a subclip from a video) and is unambiguous among siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The clear purpose provides context, but without explicit guidance it falls short of a 5.

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