Compile a storyboard, keyframes, transitions, and audio into a final MP4 video file, with optional motion effects, background score, and Android Gallery export.
Compiles an existing storyboard, keyframes, transitions, and audio into final MP4 video file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| storyboard | Yes | Storyboard object | |
| applyMotionFx | No | ||
| outputFileName | No | Custom output file name (.mp4) | |
| addBackgroundScore | No | ||
| exportToAndroidGallery | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output is an MP4, but says nothing about whether compilation is long-running, what permissions or device access it needs, whether it overwrites prior output, or how the Android gallery export side effect is triggered.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and the result with no filler. It is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity, but there is no structural waste.
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 five-parameter compile/render tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented boolean flags that materially change behavior, the description leaves too much unstated. An agent would not know the cost, side effects, or flag semantics before invoking it.
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 coverage is only 40% across five parameters. The description mentions keyframes, transitions, and audio, but those are not parameters, while the four behavioral flags (applyMotionFx, outputFileName, addBackgroundScore, exportToAndroidGallery) receive no explanation of their effect on the compiled output.
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 gives a specific verb ("Compiles") and names the concrete inputs and output ("storyboard, keyframes, transitions, and audio into final MP4 video file"), which clearly separates it from generation-oriented siblings like edge_generate_keyframes and edge_apply_video_fx. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to run first or instead, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus edge_video_create, edge_apply_video_fx, or android_gallery_export. The phrase "existing storyboard" hints that a storyboard must already exist, but no prerequisites or ordering guidance are given explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.