Plan beat-synced shots

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that only two inputs are mandatory and that sections are optional, plus the qualitative output (a beat-aligned shot list with per-section visual ideas). It does not say whether the call is deterministic, whether it writes anything, or anything about limits/errors, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences: the output shape first, then the input requirements and where to get them. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still conveys the artifact produced and the minimal input set, which is enough to invoke correctly. It stops short of describing the structure of the returned shot list (fields per shot, per-section grouping), which would be needed for a fully self-sufficient definition.

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 80%, so the schema already documents bpm, durationSeconds, sections, beatsPerBar and offsetSeconds with defaults. The description adds only a restatement that BPM and duration are the sole needs and that sections are expressed in bars. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: 'Build a shot list for a music video where every cut lands on a bar line, with a visual idea per section.' That is far more concrete than a restated name/title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling outputs like create_ai_music_video or video_specs, so it lands one notch below full marks.

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 names the prerequisite path clearly: 'get them from analyze_song,' which routes the agent to the correct sibling before calling this tool, and it marks sections as optional. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or statement of how it differs from the other video-planning siblings.

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