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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely non-obvious behavior: supplying prompt auto-creates a linked MediaDocV2, videoPrompt omission falls back to the visual image prompt, and dialogue is never auto-appended. It stops short of covering permissions, failure behavior, or ordering side effects on the edit.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by two conditional behaviors. Every sentence adds information and none is filler, though the fallback sentence is terse enough to need the schema for full meaning.

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 22-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only the prompt-related surface. Required IDs, default/derived fields (startTime, duration), and sibling selection are left entirely to the schema, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 22 parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds modest cross-parameter meaning (prompt vs videoPrompt fallback, dialogue separation) but does not clarify the nested mediaRefs/speedRamp structures or the linkStartToPrevEnd-style options.

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 shot in an edit.' An agent immediately knows what the tool produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as create_shot_with_media or duplicate_shot, so the agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 implies usage through the optional prompt/videoPrompt behavior, giving some sense of when to supply generation prompts. But it offers no explicit when-to-use versus create_shot_with_media, no prerequisites, and no mention that the three IDs are required.

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