recreate_from_link

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: no download occurs and no credits are spent. It omits other important behavior, such as whether any state is created on the board, whether the call is idempotent, and what the returned 'scene structure' contains.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause carries information. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing parameter and return-value detail.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not explain board_id or brief, does not describe the shape of the returned scene structure, and gives no indication of side effects beyond 'nothing is downloaded'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: 'link' maps to url and '15 or 30 s' maps to the seconds enum (though the 15 s default is unstated). The required board_id and the optional brief are never mentioned anywhere, leaving half the parameters 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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Get a scene structure') and names the input ('from a link') plus the output's purpose ('to recreate a video'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like quote_video or plan_edit, though it never explicitly references them.

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 only implied: the 'nothing is downloaded / spends no credits' framing suggests a free preview step, and the 15/30 s limit scopes it. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus quote_video or plan_edit, and no prerequisites or follow-up guidance.

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