Creates a new shot version by assembling exact character asset versions with a source version.
Assemble exact character versions into a new shot version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shot_id | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| project_root | Yes | ||
| asset_versions | Yes | ||
| source_version | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't mention whether this creates a new version, mutates existing state, requires locking, or has side effects. 'Assemble' implies composition but the description stops there.
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?
Single short sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the action. It's concise but arguably under-specified rather than genuinely dense with information.
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 5 params, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema explanation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently call this without guessing at 'asset_versions' structure and side effects.
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 5 required parameters including a nested object. The description doesn't explain 'asset_versions' mapping semantics, what 'source_version' vs 'asset_versions' means, or the role of 'request_id' for idempotency.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Assemble... into a new shot version'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'promote_version' or 'create_shot', and 'exact character versions' is ambiguous without schema context.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like 'promote_version' or 'create_shot'. The agent must infer when assembling vs promoting vs creating is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.