add_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses that tracks are created automatically when missing, that the default placement is at the end of the track, and that Resolve can shorten a still, so the returned actual_duration_frames should be checked. It also explains the meaning of pan, tilt, zoom, and opacity in terms an agent can act on.

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 front-loaded with the core action and use cases, then branches into placement and parameter semantics. Every sentence carries useful information, and none of it is filler or repetition of the schema.

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 description is remarkably complete for a 12-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, covering use cases, placement rules, parameter meanings, and a verification step. It is slightly incomplete around the semantics of record_frame and how duration_frames and duration_seconds interact, which an agent might need to know for advanced calls.

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 prose must compensate; it meaningfully explains pan_percent, tilt_percent, zoom, opacity, at_playhead, track_index, and implies track creation behavior. However, it leaves gaps for record_frame, rotation, and the precedence/interaction between duration_frames and duration_seconds, which are not self-explanatory from titles alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Put an image on the timeline:' and explains the workflow of importing, placing with duration, and positioning. It further distinguishes itself by naming concrete use cases like logos, screenshots, overlays, and title cards, which separates it from sibling tools like insert_title or import_media.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool, explicitly calling it 'the tool for logos, screenshots, overlays, title cards, and any generated picture.' It also provides operational guidance such as using track_index=2 or higher for overlays and setting at_playhead=True to place at the playhead, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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