stagehand_demo_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the full pipeline: actions run via stagehand.act with CDP screencast, narration via OpenAI TTS, and concatenation into final.mp4. It discloses the need for OPENAI_API_KEY and the prerequisite of an active session at the desired starting page. It does not mention potential side effects on the page state, but this is implied by running actions.

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 four sentences, each contributing: purpose, process, prerequisite, and environment requirement. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence adds operational detail without 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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of the workflow and key constraints. It explains the pipeline, the active-session dependency, and the need for an API key. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but the outputDir parameter and mention of final.mp4 make the output clear. Minor gap: no mention of failure behavior or cleanup (though keepIntermediates parameter addresses intermediates).

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the description is not required to add much. The description adds context about how actions are processed (via stagehand.act with screencast) and the TTS generation, which indirectly explains the voice and narrate parameters, but it doesn't go beyond the schema's own descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record a narrated demo video of a known-good Stagehand script.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like stagehand_act or stagehand_run_script by emphasizing narration, CDP screencast, and final mp4 concatenation.

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?

It states a clear prerequisite: 'Uses the active Stagehand session — make sure the page is at the desired starting state before calling.' This gives context for when to call. It also indicates this is for 'known-good' scripts, implying not for exploratory use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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