add_b_roll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool reads a main video and writes to an output path, and that it returns a status message, but it does not disclose whether input files are modified, what happens on failure, or processing limitations. Some behavioral context is present, but key details are missing.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by Args and Returns. It is somewhat detailed, but the complexity of the broll_clips parameter justifies the length. The organization is clear and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrasing.

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 complex nested parameter and absence of annotations, the description covers the essential semantics thoroughly. It explains the main inputs, output path, and return status. However, it omits usage guidance and edge-case behavior, which would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema has zero descriptions, so the description fully compensates by specifying required and optional keys for broll_clips, including valid values for 'position', ranges for 'audio_mix', and the structure of transitions. This goes far beyond the schema and gives the agent complete parameter understanding.

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 'Inserts B-roll clips into a main video as overlays,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling overlay tools like add_text_overlay and add_image_overlay, while also being distinct from editing tools like concatenate_videos or trim_video.

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 by detailing what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the user to infer the appropriate context from the functionality described.

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