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 disclosure burden. It hints at producing a package and verdict, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, idempotency, whether files are written, or how the publish-gate decision is reached. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely mutates project state.

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 with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified for the tool's apparent complexity, so its brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail rather than being appropriately sized.

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 explained, but the description still leaves major gaps: it does not define 'review package', 'publish-gate verdict', or how this tool relates to the many review/publish siblings. With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and three parameters, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the three parameters (project_dir, candidate_artifact, blocking_findings). It does not clarify what a 'candidate artifact' is, what 'project_dir' should point to, or how optional blocking findings affect the verdict. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 has a clear verb ('Assemble') and resource ('review package and publish-gate verdict') scoped to a 'candidate artifact'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as video_review_run, video_review_decide, video_publish_gate, or video_verdict, leaving ambiguity about when this specific packaging/verdict tool is the right choice.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or prerequisites for calling it, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the name and siblings.

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