video_to_sfx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses async backend processing, cost implications, file format/limits, segment validation rules, and error recovery via get_sfx_task. Could mention authentication or file lifecycle but sufficient.

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?

Well-structured with intro, cost warning, parameter details, and return info. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Covers all 6 parameters with constraints, mutual exclusivity, async nature, error recovery. Does not specify output file persistence, but output schema exists. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It thoroughly explains each parameter: video_path/video_url constraints, prompt length, segments structure and validation, audio_format options, output_directory default. Adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Generate sound effects for a video: Sonilo analyzes the video and creates matching SFX'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like text_to_sfx or video_to_music by specifying it takes video input and produces sound effects.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Provide either a local video file path or a publicly accessible video URL' and 'Exactly one of video_path and video_url must be provided'. Also includes a cost warning and notes asynchronous behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like text_to_sfx.

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