create_sample

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core mutation—creating a 30-second sample—and that the sample path is returned. However, it does not clarify whether a new file is persisted on disk, whether the original file is modified, or whether the sample is temporary.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the action, duration, endpoint, return value, and use case are all packed compactly and front-loaded. 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?

The tool is simple with a single param and no output schema, so the description is nearly complete: it says what is created, how long the sample is, and what is returned. Minor gaps like failure behavior and output format are not necessary at this complexity level.

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?

The schema already describes the only parameter (`file_path` as 'Full file path, as Tdarr Server sees it'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond the word 'file', which is the baseline scenario for high schema coverage.

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: 'Create a 30 second sample of a file' and explicitly mentions the POST endpoint. It also states the return value (path of the sample), which makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling inspection tools like get_file or search_files.

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 concrete use case: 'testing a plugin stack or flow on a short clip before running it on a whole library.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent.

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