remotion_add_title_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('creates a full-screen animated title card'), placement ('added to the timeline sequentially'), and return type ('JSON with component info'), but does not cover permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the composition doesn't exist. It adds useful context but misses some behavioral aspects.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, example) and front-loaded key information. Every sentence earns its place, though the example could be slightly more concise. It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains parameters and basic behavior but lacks details on error handling, authentication, or what the 'JSON with component info' contains. For a mutation tool with no structured support, it's adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section, explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults, and options (e.g., 'variant: Style variant (minimal, standard, bold, kinetic)'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain constraints or interactions between 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's purpose with specific verb ('add') and resource ('title scene to the current composition'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it creates a 'full-screen animated title card, typically used at the beginning of a video.' This differentiates it from tools like 'remotion_add_lower_third' or general composition 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?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('typically used at the beginning of a video' and 'added to the timeline sequentially'), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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