video_to_gif

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

Annotations already mark it destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds useful safety context: it writes one new file and does not overwrite unless overwrite=true. It does not cover failure modes or whether the input file is ever modified.

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, front-loaded with the core action and constraints. Every clause adds meaningful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and risk are partly handled elsewhere. Still, for a seven-parameter mutation tool, the definition leaves most parameter meanings and path/format expectations undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies overwrite behavior and the 30-second duration limit, leaving fps, start, width, input_path, and output_path without semantic explanation beyond their names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: make an animated GIF from part of a video, with constraints. The output type clearly separates it from siblings like video_trim and video_thumbnail, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for extracting a video segment as a GIF and gives a 30-second cap. However, it does not state when to choose this over video_trim, video_thumbnail, or other conversion tools.

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