capture_clip_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions restoring the playhead (non-destructive behavior), but omits other important aspects such as permission requirements, file storage location, overwrite behavior, or potential performance impacts. The single behavioral note adds minimal value beyond the name.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, stating the core action and a key behavioral trait. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover more parameter context without losing conciseness.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no param descriptions), the description is substantially incomplete. It does not cover parameter roles, usage patterns, or output behavior, even though an output schema exists. The description adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It provides no explanation for any of the 6 parameters (overwrite, output_name, custom_frame, output_format, frame_strategy, clip_identifier), leaving the agent to rely solely on defaults and names. This is severely inadequate.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Export a frame') and the resource ('from an explicit clip'), and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like 'capture_current_frame' by specifying an explicit clip rather than the current frame. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., capture_current_frame, capture_before_after_reference). The description does not mention prerequisites, preferred contexts, or exclusions.

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