remix_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 adds a meaningful behavioral trait ('Preserves structure and composition'), but does not mention permissions, async behavior, return values, or side effects on the original video. Still, it offers more than a tautological statement.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. The second sentence adds a valuable behavioral note without redundancy. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 tool is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the main behavior but omits details about what the caller receives (e.g., video ID, status), whether processing is synchronous, and any specific requirements beyond a completed video. It is minimally sufficient but leaves key operational gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context for the 'prompt' parameter ('targeted adjustments') but adds no new meaning for 'video_id' beyond the schema. It does not compensate further.

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: creating a new video by remixing an existing completed video with targeted adjustments. It explicitly mentions the base resource ('existing completed video') and the action ('remixing'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_video, which would start from scratch.

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 provides clear context: use when you have an existing completed video and want to apply targeted modifications while preserving structure. It implicitly distinguishes from create_video by requiring a completed video, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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