sync_lips

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. It does not say whether applying cues overwrites existing lip-sync data on the version, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or whether it is synchronous. Only the 'exact shot version' targeting hint is added.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of what leaves the behavioral and parameter gaps unfilled.

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. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, five required parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description omits prerequisites, overwrite semantics, and cue format, leaving an agent under-informed before calling it.

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 required parameters, so the description must compensate. 'Frame/value mouth cues' loosely describes the cues structure and 'exact shot version' hints at source_version, but project_root, shot_id, and request_id are entirely unexplained, and the cue object shape is not documented.

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 gives a specific verb (apply), resource (frame/value mouth cues), and scope (an exact shot version), which separates it from the broader animate_shot and add_secondary_motion siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 statement of when to use this instead of animate_shot or add_secondary_motion, nor any prerequisite guidance such as requiring an assembled shot or a built face rig. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'mouth cues'.

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