change_speed

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

The description adds one behavioral trait: 'Video and audio stay in sync,' which is not present in annotations or schema. However, it lacks other behavioral details such as output format, file overwrite behavior, or performance implications, leaving gaps given no annotations are provided.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The core action and key constraint are front-loaded, making it efficient and readable.

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 speed-adjustment tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior including sync. It could mention what happens to the original file or output location, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (rate with range and explanation, video_path with explanation). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 states a specific verb 'Change' and resource 'playback speed', with an explicit range (0.25x to 4x). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like trim_video and adjust_volume, none of which address speed modification.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning alternative tools or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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