run_talking_head_polish

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the pipeline stages and toggles, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether the original file is modified, performance implications, or error behavior). This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence front-loads the core pipeline, the second lists toggles and options. Every sentence adds value.

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 (14 parameters, multi-stage pipeline), the description is brief. It covers the pipeline and some parameter options, but lacks information on prerequisites, error handling, or output details (though output schema exists, reducing need for return value explanation). Additional context would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents enum values for bg_mode and preset, and toggles for several boolean parameters, covering about 50% of parameters (7 of 14). However, it omits important parameters like 'strength', 'bgm_volume', and 'aggressiveness', leaving gaps.

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?

Description clearly states 'ONE-SHOT creator polish' with a detailed pipeline (orient → denoise → BGM → optional cut/BG/captions/cards → export). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mix_bgm and smart_cut_hesitations by indicating it combines multiple stages into a single automation.

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 this tool is for a complete polish workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. individual stage tools (e.g., mix_bgm, process_audio). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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