Soften video

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: provider scopes, locks and credit consumption, plus the mandatory-confirmation and one-submission-only rules. It stops short of describing the actual result of softening or what gets consumed on failure, so it adds value but not richly.

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 short and front-loaded, but its first sentence is the endpoint path, which is redundant with the tool name and does not earn its place. The remaining behavioral sentences are efficient. Overall it is terse to the point of under-specifying a destructive operation rather than being genuinely concise.

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 destructive, open-world, credit-consuming tool the description does cover the key operational constraints (scopes, locks, credits, confirmation, single submission). However, it omits any explanation of the actual softening behavior or its parameters, and there is no output schema to lean on. Adequate but with a clear gap in describing the core operation.

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 all four parameters, including the strength enum and the payload/payload_file exclusivity. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no strength meaning, no video format guidance) beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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 opens with the HTTP endpoint path ('POST /v5/tools/soften_video'), which restates the tool name rather than explaining what the operation does to a video. It never states the actual effect (a softening/blur-like video transformation) or how it differs from siblings like apply_color_filter or trim_video. The purpose is effectively a tautology of the name plus endpoint metadata.

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 states a constraint ('Mandatory confirmation before provider execution; one submission only') but gives no when-to-use guidance and no comparison against sibling video tools. It does not say when an agent should reach for soften_video versus apply_color_filter or other transformations. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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