cassette_make_prompt

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies session assets, what it does if assets are missing, or what 'session assets' means in practice.

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 a single efficient sentence with the main action front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, but the brevity leaves the substance to be covered by other dimensions.

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 complex 10-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, one high-level sentence is not enough. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but not with parameter roles, selection guidance, or behavioral expectations.

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 should compensate for the 10 parameters, but it only names 'instruction' and 'session assets.' It does not add meaning to style, duration, constraints, output_format, requires_assets, or the cassette_language options.

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 states a specific action ('Build') and a clear object ('a complete Cassette edit prompt') plus the source inputs. It conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly compare it with siblings like cassette_edit or cassette_timeline.

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 choose this tool over direct alternatives such as cassette_edit, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. Usage must be inferred from the word 'prompt,' which is insufficient for a 15-tool family.

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