Renders index.html, runs the ship gate and uploads the take as an async task (1 credit, refunded if the gate fails). The finished result has video_url, take and library_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duration | No | Defaults to the project's duration. | |
| project_id | Yes | project_id from composer_project_create. | |
| ship_failed_gate | No | Reason for shipping over a failed gate (which check failed and why). Recorded with the take. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false); the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it is async, costs 1 credit, the credit is refunded if the gate fails, and it names the result fields. It still omits how to retrieve the async result (presumably composer_task_status) and what the ship gate checks.
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?
Two dense sentences with no filler; the action pipeline is front-loaded and the cost/refund and return-shape details follow immediately. Every clause carries information the agent needs.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the result fields (video_url, take, library_url) and covers cost and async semantics. The remaining gap is that it does not say how or when to poll for the async task's completion, which an agent would need to actually finish the workflow.
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 100%, so project_id, duration and ship_failed_gate are already documented in the schema with defaults and provenance. The description mentions the gate and the take but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names the concrete actions (renders index.html, runs the ship gate, uploads the take) and the async delivery model, which is a specific verb+resource statement. It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like composer_view or composer_read_file, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.
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 pipeline wording implies this is the final publish/ship step and it references the ship gate as a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not statement or pointer to alternatives such as composer_exec or composer_share. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
