ae_build_motion_video

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects itself. It does enumerate several significant behaviors: it can repair a blueprint, build scenes, capture QA frames, render output, and create an approval review. Missing are important operational details like whether it overwrites existing compositions, requires After Effects to be running, writes files to output_path, or whether the workflow is repeatable or destructive.

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 front-loaded sentence that uses a colon to enumerate the pipeline steps. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail, and every phrase maps to a distinct workflow stage.

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 this is a complex orchestrator with 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description remains a high-level summary. It lacks guidance on which parameters are needed for a minimal valid run, what 'deterministic named scenes' means for the scenes array, what happens after the review is created, and what the return value or artifacts will be. An agent would likely need to probe the tool or rely on external knowledge.

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?

The input schema has 14 parameters but only 7% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter meaning. It maps only a few concepts (blueprint, scenes, render) and says nothing about crucial parameters such as energy, duration, frame_rate, visual_style, aspect_ratio, approved, or output_path. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct a correct call.

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 names a specific resource ('motion-graphics workflow' in After Effects) and a concrete process: validate/repair, build scenes, capture QA frames, render, and create a review. This distinguishes it from the many low-level sibling tools like ae_create_composition or ae_render_composition, though it doesn't explicitly frame itself as an alternative to chaining those 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?

'One-shot' clearly implies this tool should be used when the agent wants the entire motion-graphics pipeline completed in a single call rather than using individual sibling tools. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and doesn't name any alternatives or conditions where a caller should prefer the atomic tools instead.

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