build_motion_graphics_demo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the multi-step process (generates stills, creates sequence, lays out shots, adds dissolves, applies scale animation), which gives some transparency about what happens. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether it modifies existing sequences, requires specific project state, or is destructive to existing timeline content. The description is moderately transparent but lacks depth on potential impacts.

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 sentence that efficiently lists the key steps and the style outcome. It's front-loaded with the main action and provides enough detail without being verbose. It earns its place by conveying the full workflow in one sentence, though it could be slightly more structured with separators for readability.

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?

The tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is the primary source of information. It covers the main workflow steps and the intended style, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing media assets, project state), what happens to existing sequences, or how the user can control the process beyond naming. For a complex multi-step tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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% for the single parameter 'sequenceName', which is well-documented with a default value. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but since the schema already covers the parameter fully, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'creates a sequence' implies the sequenceName parameter is used for naming, but no additional semantics are provided.

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's purpose: it generates demo stills, creates a sequence, lays out shots, adds dissolves, and applies scale animation. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the 'polished minimalist ad-style demo' qualifier adds context. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'assemble_product_spot' or 'build_brand_spot_from_mogrt_and_assets', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 for creating a motion graphics demo, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'assemble_product_spot' or 'build_brand_spot_from_mogrt_and_assets'. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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