Plan a professional creative video

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 output structure (storyboard, style direction, recipes, libraryCandidates, adapt/assemble decision) and mode behaviors (seed reuse for consistent, new directions for fresh, multiple directions for explore). It does not mention side effects, but as a planning tool, destructive actions are unlikely.

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 paragraph of four sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence provides unique value—no fluff or repetition. It efficiently packs critical guidance on usage, output, and workflow.

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 (11 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the overall workflow, output expectations, and how to proceed with sibling tools. It could be improved by explicitly listing all output components or adding constraints, but it covers the essentials well.

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 coverage is low (45%), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to variationMode (explaining each mode), mentions style pack options, and describes brief purpose. However, it does not cover all 11 parameters in detail, relying on schema for some. The contextual descriptions add significant value beyond enum values.

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: turning a brief into a plan-aware storyboard, style/layout direction, scene recipes, and anti-repetition rules before authoring JSON. It also differentiates from siblings like start_from_example and find_matching_examples by explaining the adapt-vs-assemble decision.

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 explicitly says 'BEFORE authoring JSON' and instructs to follow the adapt-vs-assemble decision by using start_from_example or assembling from returned modules. It also explains the three modes (consistent, fresh, explore) and their effects, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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