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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that aspect ratio is required and controls every generated shot, lists default model choices (useful for resource allocation), and states the return value ('Returns the new edit ID'). It doesn't mention side effects like whether it consumes credits or what permissions are needed, but it covers more than typical.

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 a single coherent paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs multiple useful details (aspect ratio rationale, model defaults, return value) without egregious redundancy, though the aspect ratio guidance is repeated in both description and schema.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains the required aspect ratio, provides defaults for models, and states the return ID. It lacks discussion of error conditions or workspace permissions, but covers the essentials for a creation tool.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by reiterating the aspect ratio guidance and model defaults, but doesn't introduce new syntax or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a new edit (project) in a workspace') and distinguishes from siblings like create_production and create_shot by naming the 'edit' entity. The parenthetical '(project)' clarifies the domain term.

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?

Provides guidance on aspect ratio selection ('use 9:16 for vertical/social films unless the user asks for another format'), which is a usage heuristic. However, it doesn't differentiate when to use create_edit versus alternatives like create_production or create_workspace, nor does it state prerequisites.

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