Plan a timed Wan 3.0 shot sequence

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: it validates shot durations against the requested clip length and emits a continuity checklist, i.e., it discloses that the tool reports discrepancies rather than failing silently.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the core transformation is front-loaded before the reporting caveat. It is efficient, though the comma-separated clauses could be slightly cleaner.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does so partially (timeline plus continuity checklist plus mismatch warnings). However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotation-level detail on the nested shot object, an agent still lacks enough detail to construct valid shot entries confidently.

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 carry the documentation load. It partially does: 'one to six short shots' maps to the shots array bounds, 'continuity checklist' maps to continuityAnchors, and 'requested clip length' maps to totalDurationSeconds, but per-shot fields (framing, transition, cameraMovement, durationSeconds) and their constraints remain undocumented.

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 verb phrase 'Turn one to six short shots into a timeline and continuity checklist' names a concrete transformation and its bounded input, which cleanly separates it from build_wan3_video_prompt and diagnose_wan3_video_prompt. It adds a behavioral clause (reporting duration mismatches) but never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers this is the planning step for multi-shot sequences, and the phrase about mismatched clip lengths hints at a diagnostic role. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to the sibling tools, so guidance remains at the implied level.

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