assemble_product_spot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it 'builds' a timeline but does not state that it creates a new sequence, whether source media is modified, whether existing sequences are overwritten, or what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise yet covers the main purpose and the two operational modes.

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?

The tool has a complex clipPlan and no output schema, yet the description does not mention what the tool returns, any prerequisites (e.g., media must be imported), or side effects beyond 'builds'. This leaves the agent under-informed for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining the two modes: template defaults (fallback parameters) versus an explicit clipPlan that overrides them. This conceptual relationship is not evident from the schema alone, justifying a 4.

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 ('Builds') and names the resource ('production-oriented promo timeline') and source ('real media assets'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like build_motion_graphics_demo and build_brand_spot_from_mogrt_and_assets, which target different asset types.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you have real media assets and want either template defaults or an explicit clipPlan for LLM-directed pacing and effects. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a full 5.

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