build_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-phase build/validate-then-publish behavior and mentions that dry_run only operates in the staging area. It could elaborate on side effects like overwriting or validation failure handling, but it goes beyond a bare 'build' statement.

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 well-structured, starting with the primary purpose followed by a formatted manifest outline and usage note. It is slightly long but each section adds value without unnecessary padding.

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 tool has a complex nested manifest, but the description covers the main structure and field behaviors, and references an external schema for full details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. It is complete enough for initial selection and invocation, though not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the manifest structure (draft, tracks, srt_imports), supported track types, time fields (start/duration), and media fields (source_start/source_duration/speed). dry_run is also clearly described. Detailed fields are delegated to manifest-schema.md, which is reasonable, but not all parameter semantics are fully specified.

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: '生成新草稿' (generate a new draft) from a compact edit list. It provides a detailed manifest structure, including tracks, types, and dry-run behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch_from_template and build_from_reference that likely operate from templates or existing drafts.

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 gives clear usage context: dry_run defaults to true for building/validating in a staging area, and setting it to false publishes to the draft directory. It does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when NOT to use it, but the workflow is well defined.

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