video_init_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the concrete artifacts created (media/out/receipts plus an optional Cutfile) and that the project is local on disk, which is useful. It stops short of stating whether an existing directory is overwritten or errored on, filesystem permissions, or idempotency — the key behavioral questions for a scaffolding/mutation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that itemizes the created structure with zero filler. Optimal length for the information conveyed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a filesystem-mutating init tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition is thin: no overwrite/idempotency behavior, no distinction from video_project_create, and no parameter detail. It is not sufficient for an agent to call confidently in ambiguous cases.

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 covers only the with_cutfile parameter implicitly via 'optional Cutfile'; the required path and the name parameter are left to the schema's bare titles with no format, semantics, or defaulting guidance.

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?

States a specific verb (scaffold) and resource (local Kinocut project directory) and even itemizes the contents (media/out/receipts, optional Cutfile). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling video_project_create or hyperframes_init, so an agent could still hesitate between them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the obvious alternatives (video_project_create, hyperframes_init). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and one sentence.

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