manage_reel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey side effects. It mentions detection runs once and that build avoids re-detecting, and lists mutating actions. However, it doesn't state whether delete is permanent, whether editing mutates the session in place, or whether an action requires a prior 'new' (except implied). Reversibility is not addressed.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and workflow, then enumerates actions and params. It's readable but long; could be split into steps. Every sentence carries information, though the param list at the end is a run-on list that might be better structured. Still, the key concept is up front.

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?

The description explains the two-phase workflow (detect once, then edit/build) and the role of video_paths pooling. However, with no output schema, it omits what each action returns (e.g., list/show results, build output path). It also doesn't mention persistence or idempotency of 'new' (does it overwrite?). Given 16 params, it covers the main flow but not edge-case behaviors or return values.

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 description explains the workflow that ties params together, especially 'video_paths' pooling and the edit ops (longer/shorter/etc.). It clarifies the two-phase flow ('new' then 'edit'/'build') which the schema's per-param descriptions don't fully give. Since schema coverage is already high (100%), the description adds useful operational context beyond that baseline.

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 the tool's purpose clearly: create and iterate on a highlights reel. It distinguishes the two phases (detection with 'new' vs. editing) and lists the exact actions, making it unambiguous what the tool does and when each action applies.

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?

Describes the workflow: detection runs once with 'new', then edit moments without re-detecting negative. It explicitly mentions pooling multiple videos with video_paths. Doesn't cover prerequisites like video format or whether files must be local, but the main usage pattern is clear.

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