create_shot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It never explains that this is a mutation, whether it is idempotent or what request_id does (likely a dedupe/idempotency key), what happens if the shot already exists, or whether files are written to disk. 'Explicit frame range' hints that defaults may not apply, but nothing about the 1-120 defaults in the schema is clarified.

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. It is well-structured, though the brevity is driven by omission rather than efficiency, since there is almost no content to trim.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too thin. Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the agent still lacks the required-parameter meaning and write/idempotency semantics it needs to call this 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 description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It alludes to the frame range (frame_start/frame_end) but says nothing about project_root, shot_id, fps, or the required request_id, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 and resource ('Create a new shot layout') plus a scope detail ('with an explicit frame range'), so an agent knows the core action. It does not differentiate from adjacent siblings such as assemble_shot or setup_camera, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like assemble_shot. The only contextual hint is that the frame range must be given explicitly, which does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice versus its siblings.

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