title_manifest_from_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the core conversion behavior but omits any mention of side effects like writing to output_path, the need for frame_size/reference_size, error handling, or how it treats cues that lack pixel_box. This leaves significant ambiguity about what the tool actually does beyond the conversion.

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 and precise technical vocabulary. It is appropriately concise for a high-level summary, though arguably too terse for a tool with this many parameters and nested objects. Still, it earns its place.

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 has 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the relationship between frame_size, resolution, and reference_size, nor what the output manifest looks like or the role of output_path. The agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. It connects 'measured reference-frame pixel boxes' and 'normalized screen boxes' to the pixel_box and box fields, but fails to explain parameters like fps, style, gapFrames, output_path, or reference_size. The brief cue description in the schema says 'Cues may include pixel_box instead of normalized box,' but the tool description adds no detail about how these parameters interact.

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 action ("Create a manifest"), the source data ("measured reference-frame pixel boxes"), and the transformation ("converting them into normalized screen boxes"). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like title_manifest_create or title_manifest_adjust, which likely operate on different input forms.

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 implies usage when you have measured reference-frame pixel boxes that need conversion, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as title_manifest_create or title_manifest_adjust. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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