set_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly distinguishes the tool from transcribing operations ('without transcribing') and relates it to a broader workflow. However, it does not disclose what 'set' means in terms of side effects or persistence, nor does it mention permissions or whether any existing working state is replaced.

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 compact at two sentences, with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by relevant workflow guidance and next steps. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 single-parameter tool without an output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the action and the surrounding workflow. The mention of subsequent steps (transcribe or import) gives the context needed for an agent to plan. It stops short of a fully complete specification of state implications, but that gap is minor for a tool of this simplicity.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter 'file_path' as an 'Absolute path to the video file', so the description doesn't need to repeat this. The description adds some context about the purpose (setting a working video) but does not add any new detail about the parameter's format or 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 identifies the action as 'Set the working video file' and immediately clarifies it does not transcribe, distinguishing it from transcription tools like transcribe_podcast. The specific resource (video file) and the differentiation from siblings are established directly.

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 explicit context: 'Use this when you'll import a transcript separately' and outlines the subsequent workflow ('After this, either transcribe_podcast or import a transcript via import_transcript / parse_transcript'). However, it does not explicitly state a contrasting 'when not to use' case beyond implying a direct transcription alternative.

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