Encode Project Item

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

Annotations cover the mutation profile, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the returned job ID is an 'unverified handoff' and must be verified independently. It also discloses that start_batch processes 'every ready AME queue job, including unrelated jobs' – a significant side effect not captured by any annotation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the prerequisite and then the critical handoff/batch caveats. Every sentence adds distinct, load-bearing information with no waste.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it instead covers the prerequisite, the handoff verification requirement, and the batch side effect. For a 5-param mutation tool with annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to start_batch by explaining its broad batch scope and to the returned ID by framing it as unverified. This goes beyond the schema without needing to restate obvious params.

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 ('Request an Adobe Media Encoder encode for a project item'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling encode_file or start_batch_encode, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('Requires a saved project') and explains the start_batch option, which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over encode_file, start_batch_encode, or export_sequence, so the agent must infer the routing.

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