maestro_create_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical asynchronous behavior: the call returns immediately with a task_id rather than blocking, and that the actual outputs must be retrieved via maestro_get_task. This is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but the core behavioral trait is clearly conveyed.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and immediately directs to next steps. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters and asynchronous processing, the description explains the immediate return (task_id) and the follow-up mechanism (maestro_get_task) to obtain outputs. It also mentions the output fields (output_url, captions_url, etc.). While it could elaborate on iteration mechanics or multi-language details, the schema covers those specifics, so the description provides sufficient high-level context for the agent.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage across all 12 parameters, with rich details (e.g., action enum requiring ref_task_id, scenario noting avatar portraits, aspect inherit behavior). The description itself adds minimal parameter-level semantics, only referencing 'language variant' outputs. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, this is a baseline 3.

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 primary function: 'Create a complete video or iterate on a prior Maestro video.' This uses a specific verb ('create'/'iterate') and resource ('video'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (maestro_get_task and maestro_list_tasks) which are for monitoring and listing, not creation.

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 contextual guidance: 'The call returns immediately with a task_id. Use maestro_get_task to monitor progress...' This tells the agent exactly what to do after invoking this tool and directs to an alternative for monitoring. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with all siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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