Plan a reference-aware video sequence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the 'deterministic' trait and outlines the plan components, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe what the output looks like or how the plan is structured, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word contributes: it specifies the deterministic nature, the 1–6 shot range, and the key components. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the tool demands substantial contextual guidance. The description only gives a high-level overview and uses jargon like 'reference-aware' and 'continuity anchors' without elaboration. An agent lacks sufficient information to correctly populate parameters or interpret the result, making the definition incomplete.

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 is the sole source for parameter meaning. It loosely references 'reference roles', 'timing', 'continuity anchors', and 'intended end frames', which map partially to referenceRoles, shotCount/totalDuration, and continuityAnchor, but it does not explicitly explain each parameter's format, defaults, or constraints. The agent must infer mapping from the vague terms.

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 clear verb ('Create') and resource ('deterministic 1–6 shot sequence'), with specific components like reference roles and continuity anchors. It is unambiguous about the task. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like build_video_prompt or diagnose_video_prompt, though the planning focus is distinct enough to infer.

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 only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that planning is needed. There is no mention of excluded scenarios or conditions that would favor a sibling tool, so the agent receives no decision-support.

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