resize_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavior—preserving aspect ratio when one dimension is omitted—but does not mention output file behavior, overwrite risk, or format implications. This is useful but incomplete.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and immediately explains the usage rule. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple resize tool with a fully described schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the core optional-dimension behavior and aspect-ratio preservation. The lack of an output schema is not an issue, and the output_path default is already in the schema. Minor gaps like both-dimensions-provided behavior do not significantly hamper use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explicitly stating the rule 'Provide width, height, or both' and 'preserve aspect ratio,' which clarifies the relationship between the parameters beyond the schema's individual descriptions. It effectively communicates the constraint that at least one dimension is intended.

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 resizes a video to new dimensions, using the specific verb 'resize' and resource 'video'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like crop_video and rotate_video by focusing on dimension scaling, and the aspect-ratio detail adds specificity.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool: provide width, height, or both, with the omitted dimension auto-computed to preserve aspect ratio. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like crop_video, but the guidance is sufficient for common resizing scenarios.

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