preview_review_sheets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that it generates files with specific ffmpeg parameters (fps, px, grid dimensions) and writes to marketing/preview/review/<locale>/. It does not mention prerequisites (a final preview must exist) or whether it overwrites existing sheets, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the verbose parenthetical specs (fps=2, 270 px, 6x5) earn their place by defining the artifacts. It is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description adequately covers the generated artifacts and their location. It is short of a 5 only because prerequisites and the unexplained app_dir leave an agent with minor unanswered questions.

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% and the sole required parameter app_dir is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The mention of an output path does not explain what app_dir is or how it is used, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the concrete artifacts produced (contact sheet, phone-size sheet, 12-frame transition strip), the toolchain (ffmpeg), and the output directory. It is clearly distinguishable from preview_brief/preview_check/preview_upload, though no explicit verb heads the sentence, so it reads as a noun phrase rather than a crisp 'Generate X' statement.

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?

It routes the agent to a downstream step ('Open them and score with preview_review_log'), which is useful sequencing, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus the sibling preview_check/preview_brief tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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