Compose a photographic or CG asset brief with implementation acceptance criteria to define medium, subject, materials, lighting, and headline before production.
Compose a concrete photographic/CG asset brief and implementation acceptance criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| medium | No | photoreal-cgi | |
| subject | Yes | ||
| headline | Yes | ||
| lighting | Yes | ||
| materials | Yes | ||
| subjectCenterX | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the hint that acceptance criteria are produced, without saying what the brief contains, whether anything is persisted, or what the return looks like despite there being no output schema.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is good in isolation. For a 7-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is under-sized rather than appropriately sized.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should describe the returned brief; it does not. With 7 undocumented-by-description parameters and no usage context, the definition leaves the agent guessing about invocation semantics.
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?
Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage and the description mentions none of them, so it does not compensate for the gap. Field names (subject, lighting, materials, headline, subjectCenterX) are self-explanatory in the schema, but the description clarifies nothing about the medium enum, the subjectCenterX framing range, or how the five required fields interact.
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?
States a specific verb ('Compose') and resource ('photographic/CG asset brief') and adds the deliverable 'implementation acceptance criteria', so the agent knows what artifact is produced. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like plan_storyboard or plan_visual_qa, which also plan/generate design artifacts.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance, and no alternative sibling is named. The agent must infer the workflow position of a cinematic brief entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.