studio_caption

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that caption_text is also recorded as voice-over script, that clear fades out the caption, and that no_voice excludes from narration. It does not fully clarify whether multiple calls stack or replace, but the phrase 'show (or replace)' implies replacement. Minor gaps exist but overall transparent.

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 and is reasonably concise. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly streamlined without losing information. Slight verbosity around the voice-over explanation.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the tool's behavior, constraints, and relationships to studio_hold and studio_finish. It does not discuss return values or errors, but for a UI caption tool this is acceptable. Overall 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 coverage is 100%, yet the description adds significant meaning: explains that caption_text doubles as voice-over script, describes eyebrow as 'small uppercase kicker', and clarifies that clear fades out and no_voice excludes from narration. This goes far beyond the schema descriptions.

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: 'show (or replace) the bottom-left storyline caption'. It specifies the resource (storyline caption) and action (show/replace), and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the voice-over relationship and alternative usage via no_voice.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use the tool (narrate the current beat), constraints (under ~12 words, leave up 2-4s using studio_hold), and specific cases like clearing captions with clear=true or suppressing narration with no_voice=true. It also ties to studio_finish for voice-over, giving clear context.

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