Create cinematic intro (auto)

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

The description outlines the main actions (creates sequence, places logo, overlays title, adds music, optionally renders) and mentions the return of a build report. This is good disclosure for an openWorldHint tool, but it could explicitly state that it modifies the project by adding sequences and items.

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 two-sentence description is extremely concise, front-loads the primary action, and provides a best-practice tip without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main workflow and a best-practice recommendation. However, it does not detail the build report's contents or mention potential side effects like sequence naming, leaving some gaps.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds context beyond the schema, e.g., logoPath defaults to the M.P logo and outputPath triggers rendering. It enhances understanding of defaults and overall workflow, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Fully automatic cinematic logo/title intro.' It details the steps (creates a sequence, places logo, overlays title, adds music, optionally renders), making the function distinct from sibling tools like premiere_create_brand_intro.

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 a best-practice guideline: 'Best results come from a PRE-RENDERED animated logo with alpha/own background (Remotion/After Effects output).' It implies the tool is for automatic creation but does not explicitly exclude or compare to alternatives, though the automation context serves as implicit usage guidance.

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