Project Build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the return artifacts (clips and code.py) but does not disclose whether the build overwrites files, what force/review/inspect change, permission requirements, or side effects of a mutation-like operation.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is good. However, for a five-parameter build tool with no annotations, this level of brevity is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness.

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 the description need not detail return values, but the tool is complex and has five undocumented parameters. With no annotations and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves out critical behavior and usage context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has five parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain project_id, code, force, review, or inspect. It references code.py only as an output, not as the `code` input, so the parameter semantics are effectively undocumented.

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 gives a clear compound action: build scenes, stitch video, and return clips plus code.py. It is specific enough to understand the tool's role, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like project_stitch or project_render_batch, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use project_build instead of project_stitch, project_render_batch, or scene_render_final. The action implies a full-project build, but the agent must infer that from the name and description alone.

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