Concat videos

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description meaningfully adds context beyond that: provider scopes and credit consumption apply, an explicit confirmation gate exists, and only one submission is permitted. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent would not learn from the annotations alone.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the endpoint is front-loaded. The boilerplate is compact and information-bearing rather than repetition, though the bare URL contributes little that the tool name does not already convey.

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?

Confirmation, exclusive payload/payload_file submission, and credit/provider semantics are covered, which matters for a destructive operation. However, nothing indicates this is an asynchronous render job requiring polling (siblings poll_job, get_tool_job, list_tool_jobs suggest it), nor what the result of a concatenation is. For a mutation tool with no output schema, that is a meaningful gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, payload (including video_urls, transition, duration, dimensions) and payload_file. The description adds no format, ordering, or constraint detail about these parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 never states in prose what the tool does beyond echoing its name; the only content is the REST path 'POST /v5/tools/concat_videos' plus operational boilerplate. It does not say that multiple source videos are combined into a single output, nor distinguish it from siblings like overlay_video or create_video_slideshow. This is effectively a tautology of the name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives (trim_video, overlay_video, add_audio, etc.). The only directive is an execution constraint — 'Mandatory confirmation before provider execution; one submission only' — which tells the agent how to call it, not when to prefer it. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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