build_brand_spot_from_mogrt_and_assets

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose key behavioral aspects such as whether the tool imports media, creates a new sequence, or modifies the project. It only explains the purpose and the optional polish philosophy, leaving side effects and requirements unstated. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, and no redundant filler. Both sentences earn their 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested clipPlan structure) and absence of annotations/output schema, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain what a successful build looks like, whether the project is mutated, or how missing assets are handled.

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 100%, and the description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond mentioning clipPlan control and MOGRT overlay. It repeats concept names already present in the schema, so it stays at the baseline for 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 clearly states the tool builds a branded ad assembly from real media assets, with optional MOGRT overlay and explicit clipPlan control. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like assemble_product_spot by highlighting unique features, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 when building a branded ad with optional MOGRT or when explicit clipPlan control is desired, but it neither explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives like assemble_product_spot nor provides exclusions or prerequisites.

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