omni_video_render

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It lists operations performed and states it returns a path, but does not disclose side effects like file overwrites or authorization needs. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists operations concisely. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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 sibling tools and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's role and output. It could mention prerequisites or error conditions but is mostly complete for a render operation.

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 0% for the top-level parameter, though nested fields have descriptions. The description mentions operations that map to parameters (e.g., LUT grading to lut_path) but does not explain the parameters themselves or add meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool orchestrates the final render pipeline, listing specific operations like EDL cuts, LUT grading, and subtitle burning. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating this is the final step after ingestion and generation, making its role unambiguous.

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 implies usage as the final render step but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names alone.

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