create_multicam_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether the creation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what is created, from what resources, and how synchronization works. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 complexity of creating a multicamera sequence (a non-trivial mutation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), output format, or usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall tool understanding remains inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters (name, cameraFiles, syncMethod) with descriptions and an enum for syncMethod. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'synchronized by audio or timecode,' which aligns with the syncMethod enum but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Creates a multicamera source sequence from multiple video clips, synchronized by audio or timecode.' It specifies the verb ('creates'), resource ('multicamera source sequence'), and key constraints ('from multiple video clips, synchronized by audio or timecode'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_sequence' or 'create_project', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing video clips), exclusions (e.g., not for single-camera sequences), or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_sequence' or 'create_project'. The context is implied but not explicit, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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