build_from_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the copy-and-replace behavior and the shape of replacements, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether an existing draft with new_draft_name is overwritten), the exact effect of dry_run, or any permission requirements. This is a mutation-like operation, yet key behavioral details are omitted.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by compact item structures. Every sentence delivers essential information without redundancy. The structure is easy to parse.

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 (5 params, nested replacement objects) and no annotations, the description covers the replacement semantics well but omits usage guidelines and the behavior of dry_run. The output schema likely documents return values, so that gap is covered elsewhere. Overall, it's adequate but with clear gaps in guidance and edge-case behavior.

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 zero descriptions and defines replacements/text_replacements merely as arrays of objects with additionalProperties. The description compensates by defining the exact fields for each replacement item (e.g., track_type, segment_index, source, source_start?, source_duration?) and text replacement fields. This is essential for correct invocation. Other params like reference_draft and new_draft_name are self-evident, but dry_run is not explained.

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 copies the editing blueprint of a readable reference draft and replaces materials/text by track and segment index. It uses specific verbs (copy, replace) and identifies the resource (reference draft), distinguishing it from siblings like build_draft or batch_from_template.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to create a new draft based on a reference draft with replacements. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like build_draft or batch_from_template, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'readable'.

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