Cut a video to a rectangular region using pixel offsets and dimensions. Provide width, height, x, and y to define the crop area; width and height must be even numbers.
Cut a video to a rectangular region. Width/height must be even numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | Left offset in pixels | |
| y | Yes | Top offset in pixels | |
| width | Yes | Crop width in pixels | |
| height | Yes | Crop height in pixels | |
| video_path | Yes | Local path to the video |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions one constraint ('Width/height must be even numbers') but does not explain side effects (e.g., modifies file in place or creates new file), performance implications, or potential failures (e.g., crop exceeding video bounds). It lacks transparency about output behavior.
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 brief (two sentences) and front-loads the main action and the key constraint. No wasted words, though it could have added sibling differentiation without much length.
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?
Given the complexity of a video operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It misses critical context such as coordinate system origin (top-left), bounds checking, whether the operation is in-place, and any format compatibility. The evenness constraint is mentioned but other common constraints are omitted.
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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the evenness constraint. Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description does not go beyond.
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 ('Cut') and resource ('a video') with a concrete action (to a rectangular region). It is clear and distinguishable from siblings like trim_video which typically implies temporal cutting, whereas this is spatial cropping. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or clarify the difference from trim_video.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trim_video or extract_frame. It only states the operation and a constraint, leaving the agent to infer the usage context. No mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.