remotion_create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the outcome ('creates a complete Remotion project') and return format ('JSON with project information'), but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., file system changes), error handling, or rate limits. It adds basic context but misses key behavioral traits for a creation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter details, return info, and an example. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool, but the example could be more concise (e.g., by omitting redundant defaults). Most sentences earn their place, though minor trimming is possible.

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 complexity (creation tool with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return format, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., what happens if the project name already exists), error cases, and output structure. For a tool that creates file system artifacts, more context on side effects would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for all 5 parameters: name (used as directory name), theme (with enumerated values), fps (frames per second with default), width (video width in pixels with default and context), and height (video height in pixels with default and context). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints.

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 specific action ('Create a new Remotion video project') and resource ('complete Remotion project with package.json, TypeScript config, and project structure'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remotion_generate_video (which generates video from existing projects) or remotion_list_projects (which lists projects). The verb 'create' is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage context ('ready for video generation') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to create a project before using remotion_generate_video) or exclusions (e.g., not for modifying existing projects). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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