burn_subtitles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two key behavioral traits: subtitles are permanently burned into frames and re-encoding is required. However, it does not mention side effects like whether the original file is preserved, output file overwrite behavior, or processing time/quality implications.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediate clarification of 'hard-code'. The second sentence explains the consequence and cost (re-encoding). No wasted words.

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?

For a video-processing tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key constraint (re-encoding), but lacks some behavioral context like whether the original file is modified and what the output path behavior is beyond the schema. The schema covers output_path defaults, so that part is complete. Overall adequate but with gaps around side effects.

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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters, so the description doesn't need to add param semantics. It adds no extra parameter detail, but none is needed 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 uses a specific verb 'burn' with parenthetical 'hard-code' and states the result is permanently visible regardless of player settings, clearly distinguishing it from extract_subtitles and embed_subtitles.

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?

It implies usage for permanent subtitle overlays by stating the result always shows regardless of player settings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'requires re-encoding' note gives a practical consideration but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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