Trim video

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real operational context: that provider scopes/locks/credits apply and that execution requires mandatory confirmation with a single submission only. The 'one submission only' note meaningfully reinforces the non-idempotent behavior with a practical consequence.

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 and front-loaded, but 'Current Bannerbear V5 operation' is filler that doesn't inform tool selection. The valuable operational cautions are present but the framing sentence could be tightened or replaced with actual purpose text.

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 mutation with a nested payload, the description covers the safety/confirmation side adequately and the schema covers the body shape, but it never explains output behavior or that start/end are numeric time offsets, and there is no output schema to compensate. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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, and payload_file, including the mutual-exclusivity of payload vs payload_file. The description adds nothing about parameters (e.g., units for start/end), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 mostly restates the tool name and restates the HTTP route ('POST /v5/tools/trim_video'), adding no natural-language explanation of what trimming does or how it differs from siblings like crop_video, resize_video, or concat_videos. An agent learns nothing beyond the identifier it already has.

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 trim_video over the many adjacent video-editing siblings (crop_video, concat_videos, soften_video). The only imperative is a confirmation requirement, which is a procedural constraint rather than a use-vs-alternative guideline.

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