add_b_rolls_video

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'auto-add' but does not explain whether the original video is modified, what happens to existing audio or visuals, or any side effects. Critical behaviors like idempotency, error handling, or resource requirements are omitted.

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 at 5 words, which is clear but too minimal. It sacrifices completeness for brevity. While it is well-structured (single sentence), it fails to provide enough context to be fully useful. A score of 3 reflects adequate conciseness with insufficient substance.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or confirms after adding B-roll. It does not specify the outcome (e.g., a new video ID, status, or modified asset). The description is incomplete for an agent to understand what happens after invocation.

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 100% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it does not explain how 'title' is used to source B-roll. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 'Auto-add B-roll footage to a video' clearly identifies the verb (add), resource (B-roll footage), and target (a video). It distinguishes from sibling tools like merge_videos or convert_video_format by specifying 'B-roll', implying supplementary footage. However, it lacks explicit mention of automation or that the video already exists, which could be clearer.

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 such as merge_videos or generate_video. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing video) or conditions that make this tool appropriate. The description provides only the core action without usage context.

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