burn_subtitles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully states that audio is copied unchanged, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, whether the output is overwritten or errors when it exists, or any constraints around subtitle formats and video re-encoding.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words, and the core operation is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the information it chooses to include.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the input schema has no parameter descriptions and there are no annotations. For a four-parameter mutation tool, the description omits too much about required inputs, overwrite behavior, and parameter meaning to be complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It only indirectly implies an input video and subtitle file, and does not clarify the output path, overwrite flag, or accepted subtitle formats.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource: 'Burn (hardcode) a subtitle file into the video.' This clearly explains the operation and distinguishes it from generic transcoding or remuxing, though it does not explicitly name which sibling tool to use for soft subtitle embedding.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as remux_video or transcode_video. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or indications of when hardcoding subtitles is preferable.

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