Render a video from a scene spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that no audio is generated, that uploads are temporary (~72h), that it returns both a URL and local paths, and that per-scene narration .txt files are written. This exceeds typical transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then output details. Every sentence adds value, and the key behavior (no audio) is noted upfront. No 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 the scenes array and the absence of an output schema, the description explains the output format (videoUrl, videoPath, narration .txt) and the temporary host retention. It covers what an agent needs to know to call and use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds context about the output and the purpose of narration (written to .txt, no audio) but does not add new meaning to the parameters themselves beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 composes memo scenes onto a squared-paper canvas, renders a 9:16 mp4, uploads to a temporary host, and returns a download URL plus local paths. It uses a specific verb (composes, renders, uploads, returns) and a clear resource (scene spec → video), and it is obviously distinct from the sibling list 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 description implies usage (when you have memo scenes and want a rendered video) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the siblings are listing tools, so the purpose is unambiguous. A clear 'use this when...' would push it to 5.

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