reverse_video

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 usefully notes that audio is included when present, but it does not state whether the tool modifies the input file, produces a new output file/path, or what the return value is.

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 one concise sentence with a useful parenthetical qualifier. Every word earns its place, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool this is mostly adequate, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the result of reversing the video is—whether a new file is created, the original is modified, or playback is returned. Without that, an agent may not know what to expect from the call.

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 single parameter video_path is already fully described in the schema as 'Local path to the video', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Play a video backwards' with the additional detail that audio is included when present. This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like trim_video, flip_video, and change_speed.

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 intended use is implied by the action itself: use this when you need a video played in reverse. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from related tools such as change_speed or flip_video.

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