add_secondary_motion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies non-destructive versioning via 'in a new shot version' and hints at clamping via 'bounded'. It says nothing about permissions, idempotency (despite a request_id parameter), what happens on repeat calls, or failure modes for a mutating pipeline operation.

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 filler, which is efficient and easy to parse. It is arguably too terse for a five-parameter mutation tool, but nothing in it wastes the reader's time.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the rest is thin: no parameter meaning, no behavioral disclosure, and no routing against siblings for a tool that creates a new shot version. An agent could guess the intent but not invoke it confidently without inspecting the schema.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate, but it names none of them. Only 'bounded' loosely gestures at the strength parameter; the roles of project_root, shot_id, source_version, and request_id are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 verb (add) and resource (bounded procedural secondary motion) and notes that it lands in a new shot version, which is concrete enough for an agent to identify the operation. It stops short of differentiating itself from plausible siblings like animate_shot or sync_lips, so it relies on domain knowledge of what 'secondary motion' means.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus animate_shot, sync_lips, or other shot-stage siblings, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g., whether an animated source_version must already exist). Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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