set_video_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the pairing constraint ('must be set in pairs') and the value range (1-4096), which are important behavioral rules. However, it omits side effects (e.g., impact on ongoing recording/streaming), persistence, or response behavior, leaving the agent with incomplete transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential constraints. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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?

Despite good conciseness, the description is incomplete for a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It fails to explain null semantics, the relationship between fps_numerator and fps_denominator, potential side effects, or any prerequisites. The tool is more complex than the description acknowledges, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by explaining the width/height pairing rule and the numeric range for resolution fields. Yet it does not clarify the meaning of fps_numerator/fps_denominator, the null default semantics, or explicitly enumerate all pair groupings (e.g., output_width/output_height), which limits its compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and identifies the exact resources affected: canvas/output resolution and FPS. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_video_settings and other setter tools. The scope is immediately understandable.

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 provides clear context for using the tool—setting video resolution and FPS parameters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the pairing constraint and range hint at when to invoke it. A stronger statement about reading settings via get_video_settings would merit a 5.

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