crop_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the core operation (crop a video) and defines the crop region, but does not mention side effects such as whether the original file is preserved, if output_path defaults, or coordinate origin specifics. The behavior is adequately described for a simple operation but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently communicates the operation and key parameters without redundancy.

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's simplicity and 100% schema coverage, the description combined with the schema provides a complete picture. No output schema exists, but the tool's return behavior is not complex. The description could mention output file behavior, but the schema's output_path parameter fills that gap.

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 100% description coverage for all six parameters. The description adds the concept of a 'top-left corner (x, y)' which helps relate the parameters, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 the specific verb 'crop' and identifies the resource as 'a video' with explicit parameters for the crop region (width, height, x, y). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resize_video or trim_video, which have 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 implies usage for cropping rectangular regions but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like resize_video or trim_video. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions stated.

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