Crop video

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some genuine context beyond that: provider scopes apply, credits are consumed, and confirmation is mandatory. However "locks and credits apply" is vague boilerplate and it does not say what the cropped output is or where it goes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation identity and followed by the operational warning; there is no padding or redundancy. The generic "provider scopes, locks and credits apply" phrasing is the only low-value fragment.

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 non-idempotent, credit-consuming video mutation with a nested payload and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: no mention of what is produced (e.g., a job id to follow with poll_job/get_tool_job) or the asynchronous job model implied by the tool_job siblings. The confirmation requirement is stated, but the operational picture is 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 description coverage is 100% and the nested payload object is fully documented (x, y, width, height, video_url, metadata), so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but yields only the baseline.

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 does little more than restate the tool name as an endpoint path ("POST /v5/tools/crop_video"). It never says what cropping actually does (cut a rectangular region defined by x/y/width/height), nor how it differs from siblings like trim_video, resize_video, or overlay_video. The endpoint echo is effectively a tautology of the 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 guidance on when to choose crop_video over trim_video, resize_video, or overlay_video. The only usage-like content is the confirmation/submission warning, which is a procedural precondition rather than alternative-selection guidance.

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