side_by_side

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not the output artifact type, format, whether the source files are modified, or any permission requirements. 'Raw plate next to the finished shot' describes intent only, leaving the agent unable to predict the side effects of the call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition. Its brevity is efficient, though it flirts with under-specification rather than being truly well-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?

For a four-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is not complete enough. An agent cannot determine what artifact is produced, in what format, or at what size, which are the core facts needed to call it correctly.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially maps semantics for two of them ('raw plate' clarifies before, 'finished shot' clarifies after), but says nothing about what output refers to or how height (default 1080) affects the result.

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 phrase 'Raw plate next to the finished shot' conveys the substance (a before/after comparison render), but it is a noun phrase with no verb and never states that it produces a file or image. It also does nothing to distinguish itself from nearby siblings like composite_preview or vertical. The purpose is inferable but not stated crisply.

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?

'For showreels and pitch demos' gives an implied use context, which is more than nothing. However, it never says when to choose this over siblings such as composite_preview or vertical, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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