Build an OpenSora video prompt

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive characteristics. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond these: the output is 'deterministic,' includes specific components like 'continuity constraints' and 'revision moves,' and the tool explicitly does not generate video. This adds meaningful behavioral transparency without contradicting 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 two sentences with no filler. The main action and output type are front-loaded, and the non-goal ('This does not generate video') is placed second as a useful clarification. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin to fully guide correct invocation. It communicates the high-level purpose and a single exclusion, but omits details about workflow modes, output format, how the prompt pack is returned, and the semantics of most parameters.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It references motion, camera, lighting, continuity constraints, and revision moves, which loosely map to several parameters, but it does not explain idea, style, workflow, aspectRatio, durationSeconds, negativeConstraints, or referenceConstraints. The coverage is too partial for a 10-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Turn a rough video idea into a deterministic prompt pack' and lists concrete output dimensions (motion, camera, lighting, continuity constraints, revision moves). It clearly distinguishes the tool from video generation ('This does not generate video'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tools plan_shots, diagnose_prompt, or get_resources.

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 context ('turn a rough video idea into a prompt pack') but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the listed siblings. The negative statement 'This does not generate video' offers some exclusion information, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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