video.render

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Render' implies file generation, but the description does not mention side effects such as creating/overwriting files, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. The alias hint provides some context but lacks essential safety and mutation details.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by an alias clarification. No wasted words; structured effectively for fast parsing.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context for a 6-parameter tool with no annotations. It does not mention prerequisites, configuration behavior, or output path defaults, and the alias to video.create_preview only partially mitigates this by pointing to a sibling tool. The description is too sparse to be fully actionable in a complex workflow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely implies input_path and subtitles_path via 'input video' and 'ASS subtitles', but it does not explain overwrite, config_path, output_path, or preview_width. The parameter names alone carry most of the meaning, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Render') with a clear resource ('burned-in ASS subtitle preview') and explicitly identifies itself as an alias for video.create_preview, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like video.caption or video.transcribe. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates this is equivalent to video.create_preview, providing a direct alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over other preview-related tools or mention exclusions (e.g., 'use video.caption for caption-only output').

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