select_foxbrizio_presenter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'select and validate' but does not explain what validation entails, what side effects occur (if any), or whether the tool is read-only or destructive. The parameter validate_only hints at a processing distinction, but the description lacks clarity about the tool's overall impact.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the basic purpose but omits important context: what the tool returns, what 'validate' means, what 'processing for Hedra' involves, and how this fits into the video generation pipeline. It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that the presenter number is for video generation, but the schema already describes the number range and the validate_only parameter. The added value is minimal.

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 action (select and validate), the specific resource (Foxbrizio presenter), and the allowed range (1-9). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on presenter selection, which is a prerequisite for video generation, unlike tools like generate_foxbrizio_script or download_completed_video.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used before generating a video, nor does it explain when validation-only mode is appropriate. The context of the pipeline is missing.

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