burn_subtitles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does state the key behavior: subtitles are burned into pixels and therefore universally visible, and style can be overridden with ASS force_style. However, it does not disclose the output path, whether the original file is modified, or what the tool returns on success. That leaves meaningful gaps for a mutation 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?

Two crisp sentences, with the core operation first and the optional style detail second. The example is useful and not padded. No redundant restatement of the schema.

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 simple 3-parameter tool without annotations or output schema, the description covers the inputs and the visual effect, which is enough to make a first correct call. The main gap is the absence of any statement about returned result or output file, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Sibling navigation is not needed for this basic operation, but the usage guidance is thin.

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 value by calling out the optional ASS force_style string and giving a concrete example syntax (FontSize=24,PrimaryColour=&H00FFFFFF), which clarifies exact formatting beyond the schema. Video and SRT paths are also implied by the main sentence.

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 ('Burn') and resource ('.srt subtitle file' into 'video pixels'), and adds the platform-visibility consequence, clearly distinguishing it from soft-subtitle or text-overlay operations. It is immediately clear what the tool does. The optional style example reinforces the purpose.

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?

'Visible on every platform' implies a use case for burned-in/hardcoded subtitles, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given. An agent can infer intent but must compare with sibling tools itself. This is implied rather than explicit.

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