cut_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the original is not modified, that streams are copied without re-encoding by default, that this cuts at the nearest keyframe, that reencode=true gives exact cuts, and that background=true returns a job_id tracked via job_status. These are genuine behavioral traits beyond what schema types express.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: core behavior first, then key behavioral tradeoffs, then a compact parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the Args section is justified given the 0% schema coverage. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers the operation, non-destructive behavior, encoding tradeoffs, job mode, and all parameter meanings, and an output schema exists so return values need no elaboration. Minor gaps remain—no mention of output file naming/location or error edge cases like start > end—but these don't block correct invocation.

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, and it does completely: all 5 parameters are documented with semantics—path relative to workspace, start/end in seconds, reencode for exact cut (slower), background returning a job_id. The 'Args' block adds real meaning beyond the bare schema property names and types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Corta o trecho entre start e end (segundos) e salva um novo arquivo', which precisely states that this tool trims a video segment and writes a new file. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like extract_audio (audio extraction), extract_frame (single frame), concat_videos (joining), and detect_scenes (scene detection), so an agent can discriminate without inspecting schemas.

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 gives strong usage context: it explains the default fast path (copy streams, cuts at nearest keyframe), when to switch to reencode=true (exact frame cut, slower), and when to use background=true (long videos) with job_status for monitoring. It lacks explicit exclusions naming sibling alternatives, but the parameter-mode guidance is clear and actionable.

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