swap_caption_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It discloses that it re-renders and uses cached data, sparing re-transcription and B-roll analysis. However, it does not mention whether the change is reversible, how it affects the existing project, or the output format/return behavior, which are important for a mutation-like operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, the first stating the action, the second explaining performance and listing styles. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover prerequisites, behavior, and results. It covers the main purpose, performance characteristics, and style choices, but does not address potential lack of a 'most recently assembled video', error handling, or what the re-render returns. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the schema already explains each parameter, including the style enum and job_id semantics. The tool description adds a slight restatement of the styles but no substantial new information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Change the caption style'), the resource ('most recently assembled video'), and the effect ('re-render'). It also lists the available styles, distinguishing this from sibling tools like generate_caption or create_kinetic_text by specifying it operates on an existing assembly.

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 clear context: it applies to the most recently assembled video and emphasizes it is faster than full re-assembly because it uses cached edit data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., if no assembly exists), so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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