create_aspect_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it explains duplication, naming, preserved tracks/audio/titles, frame change, per-clip reframing rules, unchanged transform properties, adjustment-layer treatment, and manual-check listing for titles/graphics.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then supplies dense supporting detail. It is a single long sentence/colon chain, so readability could be better, but nearly every clause adds behavior rather than restating the schema.

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 complex mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important preconditions and side effects. It still omits explicit return values, error behavior when replace=false, and permission/auth prerequisites, leaving some gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already defines aspects, replace, sequenceId, and sequenceName. The description adds conceptual context such as square/vertical output from a horizontal source, but it does not elaborate parameter syntax or the replace behavior beyond the schema.

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 action (make square/vertical versions) on a specific resource (a finished horizontal edit/sequence) and explains the duplicate-and-reframe mechanism. That mechanism clearly separates it from generic siblings like duplicate_sequence or auto_reframe_sequence.

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 gives a clear precondition: it operates on a 'finished horizontal edit.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases such as auto_reframe_sequence, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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