Beat Edit

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it costs 1 credit, requires a paid Clipper plan, and is asynchronous with results fetched via beat_edit_status. It does not mention failure modes or how long an edit takes, but the important operational traits are disclosed.

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 tight sentences with no filler: what it does and the plan gate first, then input requirements, then cost and return value. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description fills the key gap by stating the return value (edit id) and naming the polling tool. Cost and plan requirement round it out. A minor gap remains around turnaround time or what beat_edit_status ultimately yields, but an agent has enough to invoke and follow up correctly.

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 78%, with detailed per-parameter descriptions for music, video, projectId, length, fill, style, and musicStart. The description only reiterates the file-vs-projectId choice for the two media inputs and adds no meaning for style, fill, captions, captionStyle, or musicStart beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Cut a video to the beat of a song') and immediately scopes plan eligibility ('Clipper plan and up'), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like beat_edit_status and download_beat_edit.

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?

Explains the two accepted input modes (local music file + local video file OR an existing projectId) and points to the next step in the workflow ('Returns the edit id for beat_edit_status'). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternative tools for related tasks, but the operating context is clear.

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