tool_extend_video

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not disclose auth/permission needs, cost, model selection behavior, or what happens to the original file; it only restates the basic extend operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, clearly stating the action and result. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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 generation/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 7 sub-parameters including an enum and output-path resolution rules, the description is too thin. It should explain output handling, model/tier choice, and length options.

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 description coverage is reported at 0% and the top-level 'params' object is undocumented. The description only loosely gestures at extra_seconds ('additional seconds') and says nothing about prompt, model_name/model_tier, or the output path/filename distinction.

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?

States a specific verb (extend), resource (existing video), and mechanism (generating additional seconds at the end). An agent can distinguish it from generate_video and image_to_video, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points to alternatives like tool_generate_video or tool_image_to_video. The only implied cue is that the source must already be a video.

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