Create a scene from a clip

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it costs no credits and returns a scene URL. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, then adds downstream context and cost info. The UI-menu navigation detail is somewhat unnecessary for an API agent, but it does not significantly bloat the description.

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 output schema and description together explain the return value, and the description notes cost and downstream usage. However, one required parameter (project_url) is left undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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?

Only media_id is documented in the schema; project_url has no description. The description references a 'project media item', which hints at media_id, but it does not clarify what project_url is or provide enough compensation for the 50% schema description coverage gap.

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?

Title and description clearly identify the operation as creating a scene from a project media item. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting the returned scene URL is meant to be passed to flow_scene_extend, flow_scene_status, or flow_scene_download.

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 provides clear usage context: this is the creation step that produces a scene URL consumed by related scene tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the downstream-tool mention gives an agent enough guidance to select it appropriately.

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