upload_shot_frame

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, and it performs well: it discloses the key side effect (marks the shot's existing video as stale/needing regeneration), the auto-upload-and-register behavior, and the zero-cost aspect. It omits permission/auth requirements and the return value, but for a mutation tool with no annotation safety net, the disclosed side effect is the most critical behavioral trait.

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: core purpose first, then optionality, side effect, cost, constraint, and the alternative tool. It is slightly long but each clause adds decision-relevant information, so the length is justified rather than padded.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameter-choice semantics, side effect, constraints, and the routing to a sibling tool. The main gap is it never states what the tool returns after 'auto-upload + register' (e.g. a job ID or frame reference), which an agent might need to proceed downstream.

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 67% (file_path and frame_type described, storyboard_id implicitly self-evident). The description adds real semantic value for frame_type — explaining when to choose last_frame vs first_frame and that last_frame is optional — which the enum alone does not convey. The storyboard_id meaning is inferable from the tool context, so the gap is minor.

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 (use/upload customer's own image), a precise resource (first_frame or last_frame of a shot), and a clear scope (customer-provided materials only). It actively distinguishes itself from generate_shot_frame by explaining what it is NOT for, so an agent can tell these siblings apart without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: last_frame only for fixing an ending (large camera move / reveal shot), first_frame as the default; and a clear exclusion — only customer-supplied materials. It names the alternative tool (generate_shot_frame) for redraw/fix cases and explains why (external images lack the project's identity and style anchors, causing drift). Nothing is left to inference.

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