Make Clip

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), so the burden is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the operation is free and the render happens in the background, which tells the agent there is no immediate artifact to expect.

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?

One tight sentence front-loads the core transformation, then a compact clause discloses cost and async rendering. Nothing is redundant and every phrase earns its place.

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 two-required-param creation tool with no output schema, the description discloses the important async/render-in-background behavior so the agent knows nothing returns synchronously. However, with 0% schema coverage it leaves both parameter semantics unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap for a mandatory-input mutation.

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 0% and both parameters are required, so the description carries full responsibility. 'a moment from more_moments' loosely maps candidateId to a moment, but projectId is never explained and the id formats/sources are absent, leaving both params effectively undocumented.

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 verb+resource are specific ('turn a moment ... into a finished clip') and it names the source sibling more_moments plus the clip's constituent parts (hook, captions, render). It stops short of distinguishing itself from other clip-producing siblings like clip_video or beat_edit, which would earn 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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of a 'moment from more_moments' signals the workflow feeds from that sibling, so an agent can infer the prerequisite. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no routing against the many clip-related alternatives.

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