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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful traits beyond that: it is single-shot (no waiting/polling) and returns clips in addition to status, which matters since there is no output schema.

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. It is efficient, though borderline terse given how much remains unexplained about the return content.

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 should carry return-shape burden; it only notes '+ clips'. It omits the possible status values, error/failure states, and how to interpret an in-progress job, leaving the agent to infer polling 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?

Both parameters (id, tool) have 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning for either. The 'tool' enum is self-evident from the schema, but 'id' (job id) is never clarified, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource and action: AI clipping job status plus clips for a given job id. 'Single-shot' implicitly distinguishes it from the polling-style sibling wait_for_clipping, though no sibling is named 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 parenthetical '(used by the preview UI)' describes an internal consumer rather than telling an agent when to call this instead of wait_for_clipping or create_clipping. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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