create_proxies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it specifies ProRes Proxy, VideoToolbox, half-resolution defaults, output path, reuse of existing proxies, low-priority one-at-a-time processing, and background execution. It does not cover permissions, failure cases, or what the call itself returns, which keeps it from a top score.

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 workflow role and remains dense with relevant detail. It is somewhat run-on and repetitive in places, especially around resolution and Premiere compatibility, but every major section contributes useful information.

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 asynchronous creation tool with no output schema, the description explains the side effects and how to monitor progress via proxy_status. However, it does not describe what create_proxies itself returns, such as a job identifier or immediate result, which leaves a gap in invocation expectations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the effect of the default size (4K to 1080p), why ProRes Proxy is preferred, and why attach matters for Toggle Proxies in Premiere; waitSeconds is left mostly to 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: making edit proxies for every video in a footage folder. It also identifies this as the first step of a job and clarifies that it applies proxies to clips in an open Premiere project, which distinguishes it from general media encoding or proxy management.

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 clear usage context: it is the FIRST STEP of a job and runs in the background, with proxy_status to check progress. It does not explicitly say when to use manage_proxies or detach_proxy instead, but the workflow positioning is strong and unambiguous.

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