create_compound_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the original clips are preserved or replaced, if the tool modifies the file in place, or any side effects. The single sentence offers no behavioral detail beyond the basic action.

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 single sentence is concise but lacks structure. For a tool with 4 parameters, a more informative description (e.g., noting required vs optional fields, or order of operation) would improve usability without being verbose.

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 moderately complex tool that groups clips into a compound clip (a nontrivial operation), the description omits critical context: what happens to original clips, output behavior, or impact on the timeline. With no output schema, the agent lacks understanding of the result.

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% (all 4 parameters documented), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It provides a high-level action but doesn't clarify constraints like allowed clip types or naming conventions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles semantic burden.

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 'Group spine clips into a compound clip' uses a specific verb ('Group') and resource ('spine clips into a compound clip'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'flatten_compound_clip' (which reverses the operation) and other clip management tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'flatten_compound_clip'), prerequisites (e.g., clips must be contiguous or on same track), or scenarios to avoid. The agent must infer usage from context.

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