Motion Text

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

The description reveals critical behavior beyond minimal annotations: the draft is editable, expires after 30 days, and the 'Director paces scenes and captions to match mood and pace.' It also gives insight into effect usage (e.g., what reads as professional vs. novelty). Annotations provide little, so the description carries the burden and delivers.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose. It is relatively concise given the amount of advice, though some sentences could be merged. It is appropriately sized.

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?

Covers the main action and behavioral aspects, but lacks explicit information about the return structure beyond an 'edit link.' Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), a more complete description would state the response format or link to documentation.

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 coverage is low (33%), so the description compensates with practical guidance on effect choices (e.g., 'fade, rise and pop read as professional; scatter, slam and glitch read as novelty') and composition advice. It adds significant value beyond the schema, though it doesn't detail every parameter individually.

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 it creates a 'complete, editable lyric-video or story-video draft and get back an edit link.' The verb 'create' and resource 'story draft' are explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools ('get_spec', 'list_visual_presets') by being a creation action.

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?

Provides clear advice: 'Prefer script mode (one beat per line) unless exact timings are known.' Also warns about draft expiration (30 days). While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, sibling tools are not alternatives for creation, so this suffices.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the content of the returned spec (capabilities, limits, etc.). It aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and is informative without contradiction.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the key attribute ('Machine-readable') and efficiently covers the tool's purpose with no waste.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the spec contains, providing complete context for a simple retrieval operation.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is expected and meets the baseline for such cases.

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 retrieves a machine-readable spec containing capabilities, limits, draft schema, and integration endpoints. It distinguishes from sibling tools (create_story_draft and list_visual_presets) which perform different actions.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, but description adds no behavioral context beyond that (e.g., no mention of authentication, rate limits, or idempotency).

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?

Single sentence that is concise but grammatically incomplete as a description. It reads as a definition, not an action-oriented command, undermining structure.

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?

Missing return format details. For a list tool, the description should indicate what is returned (e.g., array of preset objects). No output schema exists to compensate.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable given zero parameters.

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?

Description is a noun phrase defining presets rather than stating the action of listing them. It lacks a verb like 'Lists' or 'Retrieves', making the purpose vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_story_draft or get_spec. Context about styling drafts is implied but not explicit about selection.

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