video_project_create

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states that the tool creates folders (style, storyboard, refs) and accepts slug/output_dir, but does not cover error handling (e.g., slug conflicts), permission needs, or mutation scope. Some behavioral info but incomplete.

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?

Description is brief (two sentences plus arg list). Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter specifics. No wasted words, but could organize param info more clearly (e.g., bullet list).

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?

Output schema exists but description does not mention return value. No error conditions or side effects described. For a creation tool, completeness is adequate but not thorough; agent may need to infer output behavior.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). Description adds critical details: slug pattern (lowercase, numbers, hyphens, underscores) and output_dir default (cwd). This significantly exceeds schema info, aiding agent understanding.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'scaffold' and resource 'cinematic video project' with explicit mention of folders (style, storyboard, refs). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on editing, effects, or other operations. No sibling tool appears to handle project scaffolding.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hyperframes_init). The description does not mention prerequisites, workflow context, or when not to use it. Agent has to infer from name alone.

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