templates

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

With no annotations, the description outlines actions and parameters, including the tip about test=True saving credits. However, it doesn't discuss side effects, idempotency, or error handling. Behavioral transparency is adequate but could be improved.

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?

Description is fairly concise but uses ALL CAPS for emphasis, reducing readability. It front-loads purpose and workflow, but the mixed formatting detracts from structure. Could be cleaner with proper formatting.

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?

Covers the workflow, actions, and parameter usage adequately for a 6-parameter tool without output schema. Missing error handling and edge cases, but sufficient for basic usage. Given no output schema, the description does a good job overall.

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 0%, so description compensates by explaining parameters: action as required, template_id context, variables as optional dict, title, test, caption booleans. Adds meaning beyond schema by specifying when template_id is required and test=True purpose.

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: using pre-made video templates. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'videos' by noting it's easier with pre-configured layouts. The three actions (list, get, generate) are explicitly listed, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear workflow: list templates, get variables, generate video, check status. Includes tip to use test=True for preview. Though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the contrast with 'videos' tool provides some alternative context.

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