change_speed

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

With no annotations, the description carries a higher burden, and it does disclose a key behavior: both audio and video are adjusted to match. However, it omits side effects like output file creation, whether the original is modified, audio pitch handling, or failure modes.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds value: the main purpose, the audio-video coupling, and the numeric speed convention.

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 straightforward tool with a rich parameter schema, the description covers the core action but does not explain output behavior or return values, which is notable given the absence of an output schema. It is minimally sufficient rather than fully self-contained.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the speed multiplier semantics already present in the schema but adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, such as output_path behavior beyond the schema's own note.

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 clearly states the action ('Speed up or slow down a video') and identifies the resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like trim_video or adjust_volume by noting that both video and audio are adjusted together.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as adjust_video or convert_video. The only implied use case is 'when you need to change playback speed,' with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions mentioned.

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