generate_review_preview_specs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully clarify that the tool emits specifications/settings rather than rendering media, and it enumerates what the spec covers. However it never states side effects: whether files are written, whether the scene is modified, or whether the call is read-only — a significant omission for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slight loss only because the second sentence lists spec contents without connecting them to the parameters or to output behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations and 0% schema coverage on two parameters, the description should still say whether the tool is read-only versus file-writing and what fps/resolution control — neither is covered, leaving real gaps for a preview-spec generation 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 0% for both parameters, and the description does not mention fps or resolution at all, so it provides no compensating meaning. The parameter names and defaults are largely self-explanatory, which keeps this from scoring lower, but the description adds nothing about valid ranges, format of 'resolution', or how these values affect the generated spec.

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 names a specific verb and resource: generating viewport/playblast review specifications for director approval, plus the content of those specs (Solid/Clay shading, burn-in overlays, real-time playback). It is clear what is produced, though jargon like 'viewport exhibition' is unusual and it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as record_previs_review or list_previs_review_scenes.

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 phrase 'for human director approval' implies the workflow context in which this tool is used, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many review-related sibling tools. An agent must infer that this precedes director sign-off rather than being told so.

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