cut_video_segment

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It reveals that precise_cut requires re-encoding, and hardware acceleration options exist, but does not specify whether the operation is destructive (modifies original), what happens without output_path, or any side effects. The return value is vaguely described as '切割结果信息'.

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 parameter list with a brief purpose line. It is concise but lacks a high-level summary of the tool's behavior. The structure (Args/Returns) is clear, but the Returns section is too vague. Some sentences could be integrated into a more narrative form.

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 does not fully explain the tool's workflow or outputs. With no output schema, the return value description is minimal. It omits important behavioral details like default output behavior, error handling, and supported video formats. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, more contextual completeness is needed.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: explains time format (HH:MM:SS), mutual exclusivity of end_time/duration, and effect of precise_cut (re-encoding, slower but precise). However, hwaccel_type is just listed with examples without guidance on selection.

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's function ('切割视频片段' - cut video segment) and the verb 'cut' combined with 'video segment' makes the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cut_audio_segment' and 'merge_videos', but does not elaborate on the scope (e.g., from a larger file).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Given many video-related sibling tools (compress, convert, merge, etc.), it fails to provide context for selection. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison to other cutting methods.

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