overlay_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that text is centered by default; it does not state whether the input video is modified in place, whether a new file is produced, or anything about side effects, permissions, or failure 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 a single efficient sentence that leads with the core action and includes a useful example plus a key default. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name.

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 five parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description omits what the tool returns, whether it creates a new file or mutates the input, and how the burned caption affects the video. For a video-editing mutation, important operational context is missing.

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 each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds only one behavioral default, centered positioning. This is sufficient to meet the baseline but not much more.

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 and resource: 'Burn a text caption onto the video', and gives example use cases like hooks or calls to action. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as add_watermark or burn_subtitles.

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 examples 'a hook or a call to action' imply when a text overlay is useful, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of similar siblings like burn_subtitles or add_watermark. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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