omni_edit_video

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 that the tool keeps characters, physics, and scene continuity, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting original), required permissions, rate limits, or performance characteristics. The description is somewhat transparent but incomplete for a mutation 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the key purpose, and every sentence contributes value. It includes a reference to external documentation without fluff. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given the complexity of editing a video with AI and no output schema, the description covers the core action and change format but lacks details about output (e.g., format, file location), input video requirements (e.g., must exist), and potential limitations. It references GUIDE.md, but the description itself is somewhat incomplete.

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 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value to the 'change' parameter by specifying the required phrasing format (one change, restate what stays the same, then the change). This clarifies how to use the parameter beyond the schema's description. The other parameters ('source', 'timeoutSeconds') are not further elaborated.

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 the tool edits an existing video using Gemini Omni, preserving characters, physics, and scene continuity. This distinguishes it from siblings: omni_generate_video (generates new videos) and omni_status (checks status). The verb 'edit' and resource 'video' are specific.

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 provides a clear format for describing the change: 'ONE change in plain language. Restate what stays the same, then the change.' It also references GUIDE.md for more details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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