estimate_durationEstimate voiceover duration for one or many clips at once (~150 words/minute). Pass an array of voiceover texts — one per clip. Returns durations in the same order, ready for add_clips.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| texts | Yes | Array of voiceover texts to estimate — one string per clip. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the description's revelation that this is a non-destructive estimation (no actual clips created) aligns perfectly. The description adds the key behavioral detail of 150 words/minute, which is valuable beyond annotations.
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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the verb and resource, the second explains the input and output structure. Every word earns its place, and the key speed assumption is front-loaded with a parenthetical.
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 simple, single-parameter, annotated read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input structure, output ordering, and intended use. Could mention what happens with empty texts or unusual characters, but given the low complexity, this is sufficient.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that the texts are voiceover texts and that one string corresponds to one clip, but this mostly restates the schema's description. No significant new meaning 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 clearly states the tool estimates voiceover duration for one or many clips at once, with a specific speed approximation (~150 words/minute). It differentiates itself from siblings like add_clips or voiceover_batch by focusing on estimation rather than actual addition.
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 explains when to use this tool: before adding clips, by passing an array of voiceover texts. It mentions the returned durations are 'ready for add_clips', implying a workflow. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap between remove_elements and remove_from_project(target='element'), which both remove elements from a clip. This duplication could cause an agent to misselect. Otherwise, tools like add_clips, add_elements, add_audio, and analyze_audio are well-differentiated.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_clips, create_project, get_clip, update_elements). There are no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even compound names like voiceover_batch and auto_sync fit the pattern. This makes the tool set predictable for an agent.
With 40 tools, the set is significantly larger than the 3-15 range that typically earns its place. While the domain of video creation is broad, several tools seem redundant (remove_elements vs remove_from_project) or narrowly scoped (get_design_guide, get_element_schema), inflating the count. The number feels heavy for the apparent scope.
The tool surface covers most lifecycle operations: create, read, update, delete for projects, clips, elements, audio, articles, and clueprints. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to delete a voiceover (only mute via update_clips) and no folder management beyond listing. Overall, agents can accomplish full workflows with few workarounds.