highlights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses AI-driven selection criteria, returns timestamps and text, and explicitly states the calling agent decides which to export. Minor gap: it doesn't mention dependencies like 'audio must be transcribed' or the side effects of clip export, but these are covered in the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. There is no fluff or repetition, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the 7-parameter complexity and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (timestamps and text) and the decision workflow. The schema covers parameter details and prerequisites, so the tool is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a high-level mode distinction ('auto' vs 'focused') but doesn't provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already explains for each parameter.

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?

Clearly states the verb and resource ('Export MP4 clips of specific moments') and immediately distinguishes two modes (auto and focused). This differentiates it from sibling tools like transcribe_audio or search_audio, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context on when to use each mode ('Omit for auto mode' vs 'Provide a topic, person, concept...'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools such as search_audio or clip_export. It gives solid usage direction within the tool itself.

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