Clypmint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description contributes one extra behavioral detail — that only styles 'ready to use' are returned, implying a filtered subset — but says nothing about ordering, size, or return shape.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource being browsed. Nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter read tool the annotations plus description are almost sufficient, but with no output schema the description could reasonably say what a 'style' object looks like or how it is used downstream. As written it is adequate but leaves the return payload undefined.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no misleading parameter claims.

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 clear verb ('Show') and resource ('Clypmint editing styles'), scoped by 'ready to use', so an agent knows this lists styles rather than manipulating one. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as copy_style, which also deals with editing styles.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings like copy_style or list_videos, nor any stated prerequisites. A savvy agent can infer it is a discovery step before copying/editing, but the description never says so.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds that this is a progress-polling operation that eventually returns the finished video, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about timeout, partial states, or what happens while processing is incomplete.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter and usage detail.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does cover the return value conceptually (the finished video when ready). However, for a tool with two undocumented, mutually ambiguous identifiers, the description leaves the caller without enough information to invoke 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?

Two parameters (video_id, import_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions either one or explains the relationship between them (e.g., whether one is required as an alternative to the other). With required=0 and no documentation anywhere, an agent cannot tell which identifier to supply.

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: it checks upload/editing progress and returns the finished video once ready. This differentiates it from mutation siblings like edit_video and revise_video, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 implies a polling pattern (check, then show when ready) but gives no explicit guidance on when to call it versus list_videos, edit_video, or revise_video, nor any cadence or stop condition for polling.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the operation consumes one of the linked account's style copies, a quota/consumption trait not expressed in the annotations, but it never explains what 'destructive' means here (overwrite of an existing style, irreversible quota spend) or what happens when the copies run out.

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 tight sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the quota caveat following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive, open-world, three-parameter tool with a nested object and zero schema documentation, the description is too thin: it omits naming rules, the required subfields inside reference, mutual exclusivity of the two reference inputs, and quota-exhaustion behavior. The annotations cover safety, but the input contract is largely undocumented.

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 partially does by mapping the two ways to supply a reference ('by link or file') onto reference_url versus the nested reference object. It says nothing about the 'name' parameter, its 60-character cap, or that the nested reference requires both file_id and download_url.

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 ('Build a reusable editing style') and resource, and scopes the input to 'one reference video shared by link or file'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like browse_styles or edit_video, but the create-from-reference framing is 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus browse_styles, edit_video, or revise_video, and no prerequisites (account linkage, permissions) are given. The only contextual hint is that it consumes an existing style copy, which is behavioral rather than a usage condition.

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

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

Annotations declare a destructive, non-read-only, closed-world mutation; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing quota consumption ("uses one of the linked account's edits") and the asynchronous upload-link flow with its 15-minute expiry. It does not say what happens to an existing edit or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the fallback upload path; every sentence carries information. Slightly dense but no filler.

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 destructive, async mutation with no output schema and zero schema-description coverage, the description covers the non-obvious upload flow well but says nothing about the other four parameters or the result of an edit. An agent can initiate the call but must guess at format/style/instruction semantics.

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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters, including a nested video object, an enum format, a large style_id enum, and a 2000-char instructions field. The description only clarifies the video parameter (file upload vs. link) and leaves title, format, style_id, and instructions entirely undocumented.

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 concrete verb+resource ("Edit one video in Clypmint") with a clear scope of one video. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling revise_video, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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 real operational guidance for one path: attach the file when the chat supports uploads, otherwise a 15-minute private upload link is returned and editing begins when the video arrives. It offers no guidance on when to choose this over revise_video or check_video, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that the profile is resolved from the request context rather than an argument, but says nothing about authentication requirements or what happens when no profile is linked.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Nothing can be trimmed without losing 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?

For a zero-argument read with annotations covering safety, the definition is functional but thin: there is no output schema, and "Clypmint profile" does not tell the agent what fields or shape come back, nor what an unauthenticated call returns.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description's "linked to this request" usefully confirms that identity is implicit rather than passed in.

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 resource ("Return the Clypmint profile") and scopes it to "linked to this request." It is unambiguously distinct from every sibling (browse_styles, check_video, copy_style, edit_video, list_videos, revise_video), though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "linked to this request" suggests calling it to resolve the caller's own identity, and there are no sibling alternatives competing for this purpose. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior not in the annotations: the result is capped at 20 items and ordered by recency. It does not say whether older videos are reachable or how to page past 20.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and the two key constraints (count cap, recency) front-loaded. No filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (recent videos, max 20). The only real gap is whether the 20-item cap is a hard limit or whether older content is accessible another way.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals the tool needs no input.

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 (List) and resource (videos) with an explicit scope: up to 20 recent videos in the linked Clypmint account. It does not name or contrast with any sibling, but the sibling names (edit_video, check_video, browse_styles) are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as check_video for a single video. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotation fact — that a revision consumes one of the account's edits and only works 'when a revision is available' — but it never says what gets destroyed, whether the original video is preserved, or whether the request is synchronous.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly ambiguous ('edits' is not clearly credits/quota), but there is no padding.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the input model and the quota constraint but omits what happens to the original video, what a successful or failed request returns, and whether it is async.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters. 'In plain words' usefully signals that change is free-text natural language, but video_id is left entirely unexplained — no format, no hint that it comes from list_videos/check_video, no mention of the 2000-char limit.

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 concrete verb+resource: request a change to a finished video, submitted in plain words. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling edit_video, which an agent would reasonably consider the same task, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus edit_video or check_video. The only contextual clue is the quota note about consuming a linked-account edit, which describes cost rather than when this tool is the right choice.

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