add_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior – this is a mutation that always appends at the end, in_s/out_s are source-relative not timeline-relative, and a producer_id is returned. It says nothing about permissions, persistence, or what happens when out_s is omitted or lies beyond the source duration.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the two clarifying facts following immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the operation, the unit semantics, and the return value. It still leaves gaps an agent needs to call correctly: whether the project must already exist, whether a failed path is an error or a silent no-op, and what happens if out_s is unset.

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%, but the description clarifies the two non-obvious parameters by pinning in_s/out_s to seconds in the SOURCE file, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would hit. clip_path and project_name are left entirely to the schema, and the omitted-out_s behavior (implicitly 'to end of source') is never stated.

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 and resource: append a span of a source video to the end of the timeline. The append-to-end framing implicitly separates it from trim_clip, split_clip, and move_clip, though no sibling is ever named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'append ... to the end of the timeline' – an agent can infer this adds new material rather than editing existing clips. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no alternatives named, and no exclusion such as 'use move_clip to reposition an existing clip'.

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