mirror

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral expectations. It only explains the axis parameter but does not disclose whether the clip is modified in place or a new clip is returned, nor any side effects or limitations. The existence of an output schema is not enough to understand the side effects on the original clip.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the action and one for the parameter definition. Every word adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation (with one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is partially sufficient. It explains the crucial axis option but omits whether the original clip is altered, what input types are supported, and how results are returned. The sibling tool names imply a media context, but the description alone lacks full behavioral coverage.

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?

The description defines the axis parameter and its allowed values, which is valuable since the schema has 0% description coverage. However, it does not explain the required clip_id parameter, leaving it to the parameter name. The default value for axis is present in the schema but not in the description.

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 clearly states the operation ('Flip a clip') and defines the two axis options with directional meanings ('horizontal' left-right, 'vertical' up-down). It is specific about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rotate or crop; the axis semantics make the operation clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or distinguish mirror from related operations like rotate or resize. The axis definition implies usage but does not offer decision-making context.

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