Manage Proxies

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

With annotations already declaring non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds critical context beyond structured fields: 'create' only requests an unverified handoff from Adobe Media Encoder, start_batch can process unrelated queue jobs, and there is no atomic create-and-attach in Premiere's API. These disclosures directly affect safe invocation and are not available from annotations or schema alone.

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 four tightly written sentences. It front-loads the tool's purpose, then delivers the critical caveats in descending order of operational risk. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant 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?

Given an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the high-risk create/attach workflow thoroughly, including handoff verification and start_batch side effects. The main gap is the toggle action: its behavior and expected use are never described, leaving one of the three advertised actions underspecified.

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 documents every parameter. The description nonetheless adds meaningful semantics for start_batch ('including unrelated jobs', default false, no render verification) and clarifies the workflow relationship between output_path and proxy_path across separate create and attach calls. It does not add meaning for the toggle action or its parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb triad and resource: 'Create, attach, or toggle proxies for a project item.' It distinguishes this tool from the sibling detach_proxy by covering only creation, attachment, and toggling, and it explicitly states what the tool cannot do ('no single-call create-and-attach'). An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear operational sequence for create-then-attach, including the requirement to independently verify the AME queue or output file before calling attach with the same path. It also explains when start_batch is appropriate (opt-in to process every ready AME queue job) and warns that unrelated jobs are included. However, it does not describe when to use 'toggle' versus 'attach' or 'create' beyond the enum.

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