AI Ideas

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by disclosing what comes back (each idea carries prompts, timing and price) and that the call is 'Free' – a cost trait absent from the annotations. It says nothing about latency or whether the result is cached, which keeps it from 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence enumerating the output types; nothing is redundant. The trailing 'Free.' is terse but earns its place as cost information, though its placement is slightly abrupt.

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 read-only generator with no output schema, the description does describe the returned items and cost, and annotations cover safety. However, it leaves real ambiguity about whether it lists pre-existing ideas or generates new ones, and gives no clipId sourcing guidance.

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?

There is one parameter (clipId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry it. 'AI ideas for a clip' implies clipId identifies the target clip, but no format, source, or example is given. With a single obvious required param, this is just adequate.

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 names a concrete output for a specific resource: AI ideas for a clip, itemized as B-roll moments, a hook opener, a cover and product shots. That is far more specific than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from AI siblings (ai_generate, ai_models, more_moments), so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The word 'Free' hints at a cost consideration but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over ai_generate or more_moments.

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