Clip Video

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

Beyond what the annotations declare, the description discloses several high-value behaviors: videos are downloaded on the local machine before upload, live Twitch/Kick clipping runs continuously until stopped with stop_live, and the operation costs 1 credit per minute of video length. Cost and side-effect disclosure is exactly the context annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact (input formats, local download, live behavior, cost, return value). The one soft spot is the parenthetical 'own lane — YouTube always works', which is idiomatic and slightly ambiguous for an agent, costing a point.

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 complex, multi-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: valid inputs, VOD-vs-live branching, the cost model, the stop mechanism, and the returned project id for polling. Nothing operationally necessary is missing.

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 focus, source, liveFrom, template, and subtitleStyle. The description reinforces source input and the live-clipping path, but adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema fields, matching the baseline of 3 when the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Turn a video or a live stream into short clips') and pins down the accepted input sources (YouTube/Twitch/Kick URL or local file path). It never names or distinguishes a near sibling such as make_clip, so an agent must still infer which of the two to pick, which keeps this just under a 5.

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?

It gives clear context for when the tool applies: URL/path for VODs, a live Twitch/Kick channel URL for live clipping, and it routes the agent to stop_live for termination and project_status for polling. It does not state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like make_clip, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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