remux_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does usefully disclose that the operation is lossless and re-encode-free. However it says nothing about failure modes that matter for a remux — e.g. when the target container cannot hold the existing codec — nor about file-write behavior beyond the existence of an output path.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an inline example and the two defining traits (lossless, fast). Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a file-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves overwrite semantics, path expectations, and incompatible-codec behavior entirely unaddressed.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not: 'input' and 'output' are only inferable as file paths, and the 'overwrite' flag (default false) — the parameter with the most behavioral consequence — is never mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change a video's container') with a concrete example and the key differentiator 'no re-encode'. That phrasing implicitly contrasts with the transcode_video sibling, though it never names it, so the distinction still requires an inference step.

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 'no re-encode' / 'lossless and fast' framing implies you should prefer this over transcoding when only the container needs to change, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not statement and no reference to sibling tools like transcode_video or probe_media.

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