Review video

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds a useful side-effect boundary by saying it 'Writes only output,' and it describes what the generated video contains. It does not explain overwrite behavior or failure modes, so the disclosure is clear but not complete.

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?

It is two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and artifact. The parenthetical label list is dense but informative, and 'optional audio under real-time passes' is slightly awkward but still 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?

For a 14-parameter mutation tool with 7% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never explains key parameters such as overwrite, project/skeleton selection, or how fps, loops, and scale affect the output.

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 only 7% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies animations, speeds, audio, and title. Many parameters, including fps, skin, loops, scale, project, skeleton, overwrite, background, and audioOffset, are left entirely to the bare schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Review cut MP4') and details the artifact: every animation at each speed, frames labelled with animation/speed/frame/time, optional audio and title card. However, 'Review' is ambiguous between inspecting and producing a video, and no sibling such as spine_render_frames or spine_video_inspect is named to differentiate.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named. The agent can infer it creates a review video, but must guess how it differs from spine_render_frames, spine_showcase, spine_video_inspect, or spine_video_frames.

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