video_concat

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

The description mentions that a new file is created, but does not disclose how videos are selected, valid formats, output location, or any other behavioral traits. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence that is abruptly cut off, making it incomplete. It lacks proper structure and is not concise due to the truncation.

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?

Given the complexity of video concatenation and the lack of parameters or an output schema, the description is severely inadequate. The agent has no way to understand how to use this tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, and the description does not explain how to specify which videos to concatenate. Schema coverage is 100% by default, but the description adds no meaning; the agent cannot infer how to invoke the tool.

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 starts to state the purpose clearly - stitching videos end-to-end into a new file. However, it is cut off (ending with 'e.g.'), leaving the example incomplete, which slightly diminishes clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_trim or video_blur_region. Sibling tools exist for other video operations, but no differentiation is made.

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