clip_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates a new file (implied mutation) and can return either a success path or an error message, which is useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting), rate limits, or output format specifics, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'using ffmpeg-python' detail could be considered slightly extraneous if the agent doesn't need implementation specifics. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters thoroughly and hints at success/error outcomes, but lacks details on file formats, error conditions, or performance implications. Given the complexity and missing structured data, it should do more to guide safe usage.

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 fully compensate. It comprehensively documents all 3 parameters: their names, types, purposes, defaults, and optionality. The semantics (e.g., 'seconds' for timestamps, 'Path to the source video file') add clear meaning beyond the bare schema, fully addressing the coverage gap.

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 specific action ('Generate a video clip') using a specific technology ('using ffmpeg-python'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on basic clipping rather than concatenation, cropping, extraction, or other transformations. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trim_and_concat_operation' or 'crop_video'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence, format compatibility) or exclusions. Usage context is implied only through parameter descriptions, not explicit recommendations.

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