compile_demo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the pipeline steps (convert → burn captions → VO → splice) and explains behavior for clips (cues.json wins over hand-authored narration). No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence summary, a pipeline overview, specific guidance, and a clear JSON example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 and nested content, the description covers the two content kinds, pipeline, and narration logic. No output schema exists, but return values are implied (an MP4 file). Slightly lacking detail on outputPath behavior, but adequate.

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 80% (high), but the description adds meaning beyond the schema. It explains the pipeline, the `fast` parameter for skipping minterpolate, and the narration precedence via example. This helps the agent understand parameter interplay.

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 'Compile demo clips + slate segways into one narrated MP4.' It uses a specific verb (compile) and resource (demo clips/slates, output MP4). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'login' or 'orchestrate_session' which have different purposes.

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 guidance on when to use clips vs slates: for recorded clips, pass videoPath only to load .cues.json, while slates take explicit narration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though siblings are unrelated.

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