generate_ab_roll

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the creation action without disclosing important behaviors such as whether it modifies the source file, what happens if the file is missing, permission requirements, or side effects like potentially overwriting output_path.

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 no wasted words. However, it could benefit from breaking into distinct clauses for purpose and style.

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?

With 9 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, validation rules, or behavior edge cases (e.g., insufficient clips for keywords).

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking 'a_keywords' to 'main content' and 'b_keywords' to 'cutaways', but does not provide additional format examples or constraints beyond what the schema already offers.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'documentary-style A/B roll edits', and the distinctive pattern 'alternating between main content and cutaways'. It differentiates from siblings like 'generate_montage' and 'auto_rough_cut' by specifying the alternating structure.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you want an A/B roll edit. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to similar tools like 'auto_rough_cut' or 'generate_montage'. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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