compose_episode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is async, free, hard-blocks with 400 on missing/in-progress videos, skips missing shots when force=true, leaves a trace, and returns non-blocking advisories. This is far beyond what a minimal description would provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, cost, async nature, preflight behavior, force behavior, advisory handling, and polling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses formatting to separate blocking from non-blocking concerns.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all operational essentials: what the tool does, its failure modes, the force flag, advisory semantics, and the polling tool to call afterward. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret the response flow.

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 50%: force has a schema description, episode_id does not. The description compensates by making clear that the episode is the target of composition and by explaining the practical effect of force (skip missing shots, produce partial cut, leave a trace). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though episode_id semantics could be spelled out more directly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: composing all shot videos of an episode into a final cut. It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like trim_shot, split_shot, and get_final_cut by framing it as the terminal assembly step.

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?

It explicitly explains when to call it, what happens if preflight finds blockers, when to pass force=true to build a partial cut, and that advisories are non-blocking but should be resolved. It also directs the agent to poll get_final_cut after invocation, giving a clear follow-up path.

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