assemble_product_spot

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 says the tool 'builds' a timeline but does not state whether it creates a new sequence, overwrites an existing one, modifies the active timeline, or what output it returns. For a potentially mutating assembly operation, this omission is significant.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second immediately communicates the two modes of operation. Every clause earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The schema is rich and fully covers parameter semantics, but this is a complex mutation-like tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not disclose side effects, return value, or how it relates to similar assembly tools, leaving an agent without full context for safe and correct invocation.

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 already documents all 8 parameters and their roles, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing the parameter relationship: template defaults versus an explicit clipPlan for 'LLM-directed pacing, transitions, motion, trims, and per-clip effects.' This higher-level semantic helps an agent understand how the parameters interlock.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Builds a production-oriented promo timeline from real media assets.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like build_brand_spot_from_mogrt_and_assets by emphasizing real media assets and production-oriented assembly. It also introduces the template-defaults vs. explicit-clipPlan distinction, making the tool's core function unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when building a promo timeline from real media assets, either with template defaults or an explicit clipPlan. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough for an agent to route toward this tool for this kind of assembly task.

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