demo_vid_script_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates a 'placeholder' script, which is editable, and provides the return format. However, it does not discuss side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description adds some behavioral context but is not comprehensive.

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 concise: three sentences plus a structured return format and an example. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by the output format and a usage example. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no extraneous information.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It includes the return format, links to the sibling tool demo_vid_generate for the workflow, and provides an example. However, it does not mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., repo existence). The output schema is not provided, but the description compensates with a return format.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'repo' (description: 'Repository name to draft a script for.'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only uses the parameter in the example. With high coverage, baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 purpose: 'Draft a default narration script for a repo.' It specifies that it generates a placeholder YAML script for editing and passing to demo_vid_generate, distinguishing it from sibling tools like demo_vid_script_validate (validation) and demo_vid_generate (final generation).

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 a workflow: draft, edit, then pass to demo_vid_generate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use demo_vid_refine instead), nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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