video_review_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not state that the tool likely writes files, what a review package contains, whether publishing is blocked or merely reported, or what permissions are needed. The schema's overwrite parameter hints at replacing existing media, but the description never warns about destructive behavior or file-protection rules.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the larger completeness problem rather than being a virtue by itself.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and only 25% schema coverage, so the description needed to carry substantial context. It does not explain what the package includes, what the verdict means, or how blocking_findings changes behavior. The existence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but not from the rest.

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 only 25%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all. Only overwrite is documented in the schema; project_dir and candidate_artifact are left to inference from their names, while blocking_findings is entirely unexplained despite likely affecting the publish-gate verdict.

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 states a verb (assemble) and two outputs (review package and publish-gate verdict), giving a rough sense of the tool's job. However, "review package" and "publish-gate verdict" are undefined jargon, and it never distinguishes this tool from the many review/publish siblings such as video_publish_gate, video_review_run, video_review_decide, video_verdict, and video_acceptance_eval.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent seeing video_review_package next to video_review_run, video_publish_gate, and video_review_decision has no textual basis for choosing among them.

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