puppet_build_scene

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

The description explains the process (layered connected clips with transforms, output to FCPXML) but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or default behaviors. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is moderately transparent.

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 concise (approx. 100 words), well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by a structured Args list. No redundant information.

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 (4 params, output schema exists) and low schema coverage, the description covers purpose, parameters, and basic behavior well. Minor gaps remain regarding differentiation from puppet_multi_scene and idempotency.

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?

The Args section adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare fields, including format for rigs_json and explanation of duration default. However, the duration default clarification ('300300/30000s') could be more precise.

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 'Build an FCPXML timeline from one or more puppet rigs' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like puppet_create_rig and puppet_animate by focusing on timeline assembly.

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 after creating rigs via puppet_create_rig, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like puppet_multi_scene. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is minimal.

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