Build Video Brief Manifest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output contents but does not explain how validation is performed, whether the tool can fail (and how errors are surfaced), or any side effects. The term 'validation results' is ambiguous—does it validate the brief itself or aggregated validation data?

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 front-loads the primary purpose. It is not bloated or redundant. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices substantive content, which is a slight penalty given the tool's complexity.

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 the tool has four parameters, a validation focus, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the manifest structure, validation criteria, or how to handle validation failures. The sibling tool validate_video_brief is not referenced, leaving the integration unclear.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It categorizes parameters into 'brief' and 'optional delivery constraints,' which groups title, aspect_ratio, and duration_seconds conceptually, but does not explain their individual purposes, formats, or how they affect the manifest. This is insufficient for a tool with four parameters.

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 returns a portable JSON manifest containing the brief, optional delivery constraints, and validation results. It identifies the verb ('return') and the resource (JSON manifest), and implies a distinction from validate_video_brief by including validation results. However, it could be more explicit about the tool's role in building vs. validating.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling validate_video_brief. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The tool's relationship to validation is only implicit through the phrase 'validation results,' which does not offer actionable usage direction.

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