deliver

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core operation, omitting key traits such as whether the tool is asynchronous, idempotent (beyond the key parameter), destructive, or requires specific sheet states. The one-word 'finished' implies a prerequisite but does not elaborate on failure modes or side effects.

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-constructed sentence that front-loads the main action without filler. It earns a 4 for efficiency, though a second sentence elaborating on usage or behavior would have made it a 5.

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 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, whether it is synchronous, or what state the sheet must be in before calling. For a tool performing encoding and muxing—operations that could be slow or error-prone—this information is critical for correct invocation.

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%—all three parameters (key, sheet, motion) already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, constraints, or interactions. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not degrade understanding but also does not enhance it.

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 action with specific verbs ('encode and mux') and identifies the resource ('finished deliverable for a cut sheet'). This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tool names like 'inspect', 'draft', or 'preview', enabling an agent to differentiate it easily.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings like 'preview' or 'verify' might be used before or after delivery, but the description does not mention prerequisites, sequencing, or conditions that would help an agent decide between them.

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