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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: aspectRatio is required because it governs every generated shot, the default image/video/speech models are named, and the return value (new edit ID) is stated despite there being no output schema. It does not cover permissions, billing/quota impact, or failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the required-parameter rationale, then defaults, then the return value. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is 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?

For a create tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required input rationale, defaults, and the return value, which is sufficient to invoke correctly. It stops short of mentioning authorization requirements or what happens on invalid input, so it is complete but not exhaustive.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents every parameter, including the model defaults. The description restates the aspect-ratio rule and the model defaults, adding emphasis but little information beyond the schema. It also names a default speech model (cartesia-sonic-3-5) that has no corresponding parameter in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new edit (project) in a workspace') and parenthetically disambiguates 'edit' as a project, which matters given siblings like create_production, create_scene, and create_shot. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 gives real guidance on choosing aspectRatio ('use 9:16 for vertical/social films unless the user asks for another format'), but offers no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as create_production or create_workspace. Usage is implied by the 'new edit in a workspace' framing rather than stated.

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