smart_crop_vertical

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

With no annotations, the description usefully explains the three framing behaviors, default output naming, default 1080x1920 canvas, and JSON result. It leaves operational details such as overwriting an existing output, preserving the source file, and failure handling unstated.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the Args section is compact, scannable, and substantive. The Returns line is brief, with no filler or unnecessary 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?

The description provides nearly everything needed to invoke this five-parameter conversion tool, compensating well for the bare schema and missing annotations. Minor gaps around overwrite behavior and supported inputs prevent it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage, every parameter is documented: path meaning, optional output naming, three valid mode strings with their visual effects, and canvas-dimension defaults. This supplies essential information missing from the schema, especially because mode has no enum.

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 opening sentence specifies the operation, input, and output: transforming horizontal 16:9 video into 9:16 video for Shorts, Reels, or TikTok. This clearly distinguishes it from the silence-removal, grading, audio-extraction, and draft-generation siblings.

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 16:9-to-9:16 social-video context makes the intended use clear, while the mode explanations help agents choose among blur padding, center cropping, and black bars. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or identify an alternative for other reframing needs.

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