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

Annotations declare it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds the key async behavior the annotations cannot: it returns {status, alreadyRunning?} and must be followed by wait_job(kind="suggestions"). It also discloses the side effect that finalized suggestions get promoted to kind-'clip' briefs for project media, which is important behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scope in the first sentence, then proceeds through the workflow chain. It is dense but each sentence (async follow-up, brief promotion, compose routing) earns its place given the multi-step flow.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still explains the {status, alreadyRunning?} shape. Combined with the wait_job follow-up and the compose routing for both project and project-less media, the agent has everything needed to invoke and chain it correctly.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description references mediaItemId only obliquely via wait_job(id=mediaItemId), adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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+resource (run AI clip-suggestion analysis on a long-form media item) and immediately names its domain ('the CLIPPING path') to distinguish it from the general path. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (long-form media, finding best short-form moments) and when not ('Clipping is a vertical, NOT the general path'). It also routes the agent to alternatives: compose({briefId}) for project media and compose({suggestionId}) for project-less media.

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