Connect Runway video bridge

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

Annotations (openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) already indicate side effects and non-read-only behavior. The description adds context that it creates a scaffold with prompt maps, contracts, polling status, and adapter notes, but does not detail external interactions or failure modes. Given annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded verb and object, no redundancy or filler. Every phrase adds meaningful detail about the scaffold contents.

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 description gives a high-level overview but omits parameter semantics, usage context, and expected output details. With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description alone is insufficient for correct invocation without guessing.

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 only 22% schema description coverage, most parameters have only defaults and no explanation. The description references 'prompt maps' and 'contracts' but does not map to any specific parameter, leaving agents to guess semantics for fields like generation_mode, input_clip_path, etc.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Create a Runway-style video generation handoff scaffold' with specific deliverables (prompt maps, input/result contracts, polling status, adapter notes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling connect_* and create_* tools by the Runway video generation focus.

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?

No when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the name and description—use when you need a Runway video bridge scaffold—but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.

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