Plan a reference-aware shot sequence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Read-only and deterministic', which is largely redundant with the annotations but does explicitly mention determinism. It provides no additional behavioral details about output structure or side effects, so only modest value is added beyond the annotations.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key output attributes. Every phrase adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a straightforward function.

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?

While the purpose is clear and safety is covered by annotations, the description does not explain how the output is structured (e.g., what 'end frames' or 'continuity anchors' look like in practice) or provide guidance on how each parameter affects the result. For an agent to call the tool correctly, it may need more detail on parameter semantics and expected outputs, especially given the lack of an output schema and zero schema descriptions.

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 explicitly names 'reference roles', 'camera direction', and 'continuity anchors', which map to referenceRoles, cameraStyle, and continuityAnchor, and '1 to 6 timed shots' implies shotCount and totalDurationSeconds ranges. However, it does not discuss the exact syntax, defaults, or interactions of parameters, leaving room for ambiguity. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 states a specific verb ('Break'), a resource ('one video idea'), and the output format ('1 to 6 timed shots') with explicit elements (reference roles, camera direction, end frames, continuity anchors). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on shot planning with references, whereas siblings handle diagnosis, building prompts, or resource retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (diagnose_video_prompt, build_video_prompt, get_china_video_resources). The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected or what alternatives exist. This leaves the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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