edit_video

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the return format (task id, status, output URLs). It omits important details such as the operation being asynchronous (evident from wait/poll parameters), potential side effects (initiating a processing job), or any auth/cost implications. This is insufficient for a task-creating tool.

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 front-loads the primary action and includes the key output behavior. No redundant words or unnecessary detail; it is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the editing workflow, parameter purposes, or how it fits with sibling tools. The return value mention is helpful but insufficient for a complex tool requiring prompt-based video edits with multiple optional controls.

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 only 18%, and the description provides no additional parameter explanations. The required 'prompt' and 'source_video_url' are not elaborated, nor are optional parameters like aspect_ratio, reference_image_url, or callback_url. The description fails to compensate for the sparse 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 explicitly states the action ('Create a Runway Aleph task') and resource ('on RunAPI'), with the parenthetical 'edit video' clarifying the domain. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like login, get_task, and check_pricing, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_task should be used to check status, nor does it specify prerequisites or scenarios for which this tool is appropriate. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and the mention of 'edit video.'

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