convert_video

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions quality control via CRF or bitrate, which is useful, but it does not elaborate on side effects like audio handling, compatibility constraints, or whether re-encoding is always performed. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately provides supported formats and codecs. No unnecessary words or redundant details are present.

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?

The description is adequate for a tool with a well-documented schema, but it lacks additional context such as use cases, prerequisites, or notes on how audio streams are handled. Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations), more context would be beneficial.

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 covers all six parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning, merely restating that quality can be adjusted via CRF or bitrate, which is already present in 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 clearly states the tool converts videos to different container formats and codecs, listing specific supported formats and codecs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trim_video or extract_audio, which perform different operations.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool (when format or codec conversion is needed) and provides examples of valid formats/codecs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where other tools should be used, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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