Build a SeeVido video prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the operational safety profile. The description adds context by noting the output is 'deterministic' and includes specific elements, which aligns with idempotency and read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose any limitations, edge cases, or additional behavioral nuances beyond the annotations, so it adds modest value but not rich disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the included elements without redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's function, making it highly concise and appropriately sized.

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 (11 parameters, enums, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use it, what the output structure looks like, or how parameters interact. The agent has little guidance on how to choose parameter values or what to expect from the result. The description covers high-level intent but lacks the depth needed for correct invocation in varied scenarios.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter understanding. It lists several key parameters (motion, camera, lighting, reference roles) and implies continuity controls, giving some semantic meaning. However, it omits many other parameters like workflow, aspectRatio, outputLanguage, durationSeconds, and negativeConstraints, and does not explain their purpose or constraints. The description adds value but only partially compensates for the total lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool's function: turning a rough idea into a deterministic prompt pack with specific elements (motion, camera, lighting, etc.) and language options. It is specific about the output resource and purpose, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like plan_reference_sequence or diagnose_video_prompt, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where another sibling would be more appropriate. The only hint is that it 'turns a rough idea into a prompt pack,' implying it's for prompt creation, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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