Map a rundown item type to a template

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

The description discloses that by default it validates the sub-composition and node ids against the live model, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations are present and consistent; the description provides additional details like default validation and return structure, which compensates fairly.

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 relatively concise, front-loading the purpose. However, the 'Args:' section repeats schema information, adding some redundancy. Overall, it is efficient but could be slightly tighter.

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 having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose, usage context (used by other tools), default behavior (validation), and return structure. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description lists the arguments but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, 'fieldMap' is described as 'story field → nodeId' which mirrors the schema description. No extra semantics are added.

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 binds a rundown item type to a specific app + sub-composition and a field map. It provides concrete examples of item types like 'lower-third', 'ots', etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is used by prepare_item and play_rundown_item.

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 mentions that this tool is used by 'prepare_item' and 'play_rundown_item', which provides context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The usage is implied but not fully delineated.

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