build_motion_graphics_demo

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key behaviors: generating stills, creating a sequence, adding dissolves, and applying scale animation. It explains the multi-step process and the intended aesthetic. It does not mention prerequisites or side effects, but the description is granular enough to set expectations for a creation 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the steps without redundancy. Every phrase adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the primary action ('Generates clean demo stills') followed by supporting details.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a comprehensive overview of its behavior. It explains the full sequence of actions and the intended outcome. It could mention the optional sequenceName parameter or prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a high-level automation tool.

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 100% for the single parameter (sequenceName), so the schema already documents its purpose. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema covers the parameter semantics adequately.

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 ('Generates'), names the resource ('demo stills', 'sequence', 'timeline'), and describes the full workflow. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_sequence' or 'assemble_product_spot' by explicitly mentioning 'motion graphics demo' and the specific effects (dissolves, scale animation).

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 implies usage context with 'polished minimalist ad-style demo' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios, leaving the comparison to the agent's inference.

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