publish_carousel_as_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the conversion to a 1080×1920 MP4, the draft vs. publish behavior, the audio baking, the ffmpeg dependency, and the output type (single video post). It also explains platform-specific API limitations, providing transparency beyond basic side effects.

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 three sentences long, each earning its place. The first sentence front-loads the core action, the second gives detailed usage cases, and the third covers prerequisites and outcome. No fluff or repetition.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it: it covers the main use cases, output type, and a key prerequisite. The schema handles parameter details, and the description's statement about the return type compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the resolution and ffmpeg requirement but leaves detailed parameter semantics to the schema. The 'audio_path' and 'mode' behaviors are already described in the schema, so the description adds minimal value here.

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 function: 'Convert a folder of images into a 1080×1920 slideshow MP4 and publish it.' It also distinguishes this from a standard carousel post by noting 'Returns a single video post, not a carousel post.' This makes the purpose specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like publish_now or publish_to_meta.

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 explicitly lists two scenarios for using this tool: (a) when a TikTok DRAFT is wanted (due to TikTok's API rejecting photo carousels for drafts) and (b) when attaching a specific MP3 to the carousel (since TikTok/IG don't allow audio on photo posts). It also notes a prerequisite ('Requires ffmpeg installed locally'), giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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