reframe_to

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only states the action. It does not disclose whether the original asset is modified or a new asset is produced, whether rendering is triggered, or whether the operation is destructive/reversible.

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 with no filler. It loses a point only because its brevity contributes to ambiguity about what 'reframe' entails.

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 transformation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is too thin. It omits the meaning of focus, whether target_aspect is required (it is not marked required in the schema), and what the tool returns or produces.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: 'video asset' maps to asset_id and 'different aspect ratio' maps to target_aspect, but focus is left unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining how focus determines the reframe, and it does not.

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 names a concrete operation ('reframe'), a specific resource ('video asset'), and the intended outcome ('different aspect ratio'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like trim or make_short. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools or clarify whether 'reframe' means cropping, scaling, or padding.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as make_short, render, or trim. The phrase 'for a different aspect ratio' implies the use case, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or sibling references.

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