scale_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 key behavioral traits: the tool uses FFmpeg, preserves aspect ratio and color accuracy, and returns a file path. However, it misses details like error handling, performance implications (e.g., processing time), or system requirements, which are important for a video processing 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (video processing), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains the action, parameters, and return, but could improve by addressing potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., FFmpeg installation).

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 significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'input_video_path' is for the input file, 'resolution' is the target with acceptable values ('1080p', '2k', '4k') and a default. This covers both parameters well, though it could note path format or file type constraints.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Upscales') and resource ('a video'), including the target resolutions and technical details (using FFmpeg, preserving aspect ratio and color accuracy). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'crop_video' or 'trim_and_concat_operation' by focusing on resolution enhancement rather than editing or extraction.

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 implies usage for upscaling videos to higher resolutions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_video_metadata' for checking current resolution or other editing tools. It provides context on what the tool does but lacks explicit guidance on scenarios or exclusions.

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