adjust_video

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the action and the ffmpeg filter, but doesn't disclose whether the input is modified, if output is a new file, if the operation is lossy, or any side effects. The schema suggests output_path, but the description doesn't confirm the behavior.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without excess words. It mentions the implementation detail (ffmpeg eq filter) which is useful and concise.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what happens to the output, whether the input is preserved, or what the return value is. The schema helps with parameters but the description lacks behavioral context.

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 100%, with each parameter fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra detail about parameters beyond naming the three adjustable properties, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'adjust' with resource 'video' and lists the exact properties (brightness, contrast, saturation), plus mentions the ffmpeg eq filter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like adjust_volume or resize_video.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for brightness/contrast/saturation adjustments, but doesn't mention exclusions or when to choose convert_video or other color-related tools. The 'and/or' phrasing suggests optional combination, but no further context.

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