generate_ab_roll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the high-level behavior (alternating A/B roll edits) but omits important details such as how clips are selected, whether the original timeline is modified, or any side effects. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that gets to the point. However, given the tool's complexity (9 parameters), a bit more detail would be justified without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Considering the tool has 9 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, preconditions, or how parameters affect the result. The agent is left with many unknowns.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their types. The description adds no additional meaning or usage hints beyond the schema, such as how keywords interact or how durations are interpreted. Baseline score applies as no extra value is provided.

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 tool creates A/B roll edits alternating between main content and cutaways, with a documentary-style focus. It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_montage' but could better differentiate from 'auto_rough_cut' and other similar tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or context for choosing this over sibling tools like 'generate_montage' or 'auto_rough_cut'.

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