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

The description goes far beyond the annotations: it explains that the pipeline only seeds source windows, does not choose captions/effects, returns a job ID, and bounds creation by source duration. It explicitly states what it does NOT do, which is critical for a complex tool. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false aligns with creating projects).

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 description is long (a single dense paragraph) but every sentence carries distinct information, and the most critical scoping and responsibility details are front-loaded. It could be broken into sections for readability, but it is not redundant or padded.

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?

Given the complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers the return value (job ID), how to poll for completion, caller responsibilities, limitations, and parameter nuances. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 75%, the description adds substantial meaning to all four parameters: it clarifies that count only bounds the legacy auto-scout, that clips must be non-overlapping and caller-authored, that project_id is immutable and copied from other tools, and that style_note is reference context not a recipe. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 states a specific action (create locked child projects from explicit story arcs) on a specific resource (podcast/video), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like open_short by emphasizing the creation and scouting job. The first sentence adds project scoping, and the overall text leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 instructs MCP callers to perform editorial selection themselves, explains the difference from studio users, and clarifies when to use count vs clips. It also names polling mechanisms (wait_for_job or shorts_status), giving concrete alternatives and conditions.

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