suggest_clips

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

With no annotations available, the description explains behavior in detail: it lists what each mode returns (ranked alternatives with thumbnails, timeline cutaways with segment info, library matches with matched tags). It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state side-effect freedom or error cases, which is a minor gap.

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?

The description is long but well-structured: a front-loaded summary sentence followed by clearly separated LOCAL and HOSTED sections. Every sentence delivers essential information about mode-specific behavior and outputs, though it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values for each mode (e.g., 'segment id + the beat each covers + current clip' and 'library tags it matched on'). It also covers the full workflow by mentioning the follow-up swap_clip call, making it complete for a tool with this complexity.

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%, and the description largely repeats the same parameter details as the schema. It adds some context on how parameters interact (e.g., job_id vs cut) and what each mode produces, but the schema already conveys individual parameter semantics. Therefore, 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'See a project's cutaways and find better B-roll for one of them.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool swap_clip by explicitly saying 'Then call swap_clip to apply a choice.'

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use LOCAL vs HOSTED modes, and within HOSTED, when to omit vs provide a query. It also points to an alternative tool (swap_clip) for applying a choice, giving clear context for usage.

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