build_motion_graphics_demo

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does enumerate the operations it performs: creates a sequence, lays out shots, adds dissolves, and applies scale animation. It does not disclose side effects such as whether a new sequence becomes active, whether existing timeline content is replaced, or where the stills and assets come from. It is informative at a high level but leaves key mutation behavior unstated.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary actions and keeps modifiers meaningful. Every clause adds behavioral information and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It is appropriately sized for a macro-style 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 multi-step sequence-building tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description would benefit from stating what the resulting sequence is called, whether the active sequence is changed, and what source material is used. The optional sequenceName is the only input, so most behavior is fixed, but an agent cannot predict the side effects on the timeline. It covers the high-level workflow but leaves operational context incomplete.

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%: sequenceName is fully documented with its default value. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail and does not mention the parameter at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the work.

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 specifies a concrete multi-step deliverable: generating stills, building a sequence, laying out shots, adding dissolves, and applying scale animation. This clearly differentiates it from generic assembly tools like assemble_product_spot and build_brand_spot_from_mogrt_and_assets, even without naming them. It goes well beyond a restatement of the tool name.

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 only usage context is the final purpose clause 'for a polished minimalist ad-style demo,' which implies when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state exclusions or point to alternative tools for other kinds of spots or assemblies. The guidance is therefore mostly implied rather than stated.

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