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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses ordering, page size, key returned fields, the meaning of stage=COMPLETE, and the API-key prerequisite. That is strong behavioral context, though it does not cover rate limits or error behavior.

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 deprecation warning is front-loaded, followed by purpose, return shape, and prerequisite. The prose is dense but well organized, and every sentence contributes useful selection or setup information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the important returned fields and their relevance. It also covers pagination, ordering, deprecation, and the API-key prerequisite, so an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly or redirect.

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 the single page parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds useful meaning by stating that results are returned 24 per page, which clarifies the unit of the page parameter 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists the user's OpusClip projects'), clarifies what those projects are, and immediately routes agents away from this deprecated tool to list_import_items with source opusclip. It also names the related clip tools, so it is clearly distinguishable from siblings.

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?

It explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and names the replacement tool plus the required source value. It also states the prerequisite that the user's OpusClip API key must be saved under Settings > Integrations and says what to tell the user if it is missing.

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