shot_prompt_render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and falls short. It says the tool 'expands' a shot into strings, yet the schema exposes an 'overwrite' flag described as 'allow replacing existing media', implying this operation may write or render files — a significant side effect the prose never mentions. Nothing is said about whether storyboard.md/style.md are modified, what permissions are needed, or where outputs land.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact, with no redundant text. The raw docstring formatting is functional but slightly less scannable than a prose paragraph would be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool's nature remains ambiguous: it is named 'render' and accepts an 'overwrite ... existing media' flag, yet the prose frames it as pure string expansion. Without annotations, the description should resolve whether this reads only or also writes media files to the project.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates well: project_path is qualified as an absolute path to a directory containing style.md and storyboard.md, and shot is clarified as either an id or a 1-based row number from storyboard.md. The remaining parameter, overwrite, is documented in the schema itself, so all three are covered.

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?

States a specific verb and transformation: expand a single shot from storyboard.md into prompt and negative_prompt strings. The resource and output type are unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as storyboard_read, style_pack_read, or hyperframes_still, which an agent might reach for instead.

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 description establishes prerequisites (a project directory containing style.md and storyboard.md) which tells the agent what must exist first, but it never states when to call this versus storyboard_read or the render siblings, nor any when-not conditions.

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