screenstudio_loop

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: work happens on a COPY so the main edit stays intact (consistent with destructiveHint=false), sound is muted, the cursor returns to start and zooms end before the restart, and output is 1080p60 MP4 + silent WebM + GIF under maxGifBytes + poster. It also enumerates exactly what is returned, including the SSIM join-quality score and side-by-side end frames.

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 purpose is front-loaded and almost every clause conveys necessary behavior, so little is wasted. However, the body is a dense comma-chained mega-sentence that is harder to parse than it needs to be, costing readability for a complex tool.

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 complex, 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the destructive/non-destructive model, the plan vs apply modes, and the full return payload, so an agent can call it correctly. Residual gaps are the unexplained 'show' toggle and the path parameters' expectations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for most params: targetMs (4-15s), apply (plan vs apply), maxGifBytes (GIF size cap), baseName ('<name> Loop.screenstudio'), and formats (which files render). It leaves 'show', projectPath, and outputDir unexplained, which is a real but minor gap.

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?

States a specific verb and deliverable ('Make a seamless loop for a landing page hero or a README') and details exactly what it produces (MP4/WebM/GIF/poster plus a looped copy of the project). It is clearly separable from siblings like screenstudio_export_variants, which export rather than synthesize a seamless loop from a copy.

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?

Gives clear use context (landing page hero or README) and distinguishes the planning mode via 'apply:false only plans and shows the join from the raw recording.' It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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