assemble_video

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the mutative behavior (rendering video), side effects (output path), and specific processing like looping and ducking of BGM and loudness normalization. Lacks mention of required preceding steps or potential errors.

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?

Single sentence efficiently packs all major operations in a natural, front-loaded order. Every clause adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 complexity of video assembly, the description covers key behaviors (Ken Burns, concat, captions, music, loudness). It mentions the return value (output path) but lacks details on output format or error conditions. Sufficient for an experienced agent.

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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions). The description adds context for bgmPath ('looped, ducked') and mentions overall loudness normalization, but does not elaborate on bgmVolumeDb or captions beyond schema defaults. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 uses specific verbs ('Render', 'concat', 'burn in') and names all major processing steps: Ken Burns motion, caption burn-in, background music (looped, ducked), loudness normalization. It clearly distinguishes this as the final assembly step among sibling tools.

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 'Render the final video' implies it is the terminal step after sibling tools like generate_narration and generate_images. The context is clear, but no explicit when-or-when-not to use or alternative suggestions are given.

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