cassette_upload_footage

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states the basic action but omits success/failure behavior, side effects (e.g., overwriting), permissions needed, or rate limits. This leaves the agent uncertain about the operation's implications.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with no redundancy. However, conciseness sacrifices necessary detail; it could be restructured to include more information without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (2 string params, no output schema), the description lacks practical context such as file size limits, supported formats, or error scenarios. The absence of this information means the agent cannot reliably use the tool without additional knowledge.

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 0%, meaning no parameter documentation in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field names and types. For a two-parameter tool, this is inadequate; the agent lacks details like format expectations for local path or how clipId is used.

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 action (Upload), the resource (footage file to a clip), and the source (local path). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like cassette_upload_final or cassette_upload_track_file, missing a chance to specify what type of footage or constraints.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, such as whether the clip must already exist or what file formats are supported. The agent receives no context to decide between this and other upload tools.

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