create_analysis

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

Beyond annotations (which only indicate readOnly=false etc.), the description discloses key behavior: asynchronous execution, result structure, and cost implications ('preview the cost before spending credits', 'billed at 50%'). This adds valuable context annotations do not provide.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, input, async behavior, result, validation, and batch alternative. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool and front-loaded with the core action.

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 the tool's complexity (async, cost, validation, batch), the description covers all major workflow aspects: how to use, what to expect, prerequisites, and alternatives. Output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable; the description goes beyond by summarizing result fields anyway.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description reiterates video_id and prompt examples but adds no new meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra semantic value is added.

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 'Ask a question about a video (POST /v1/analyses)', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting async behavior ('use wait_for_analysis to block'), validation ('call validate_analysis first'), and batch alternative ('use create_analysis_batch').

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?

Explicit guidance is given: when to use this tool (single analysis), when to use alternatives (batch for 2–10 prompts, wait_for_analysis to block), and a recommended pre-step (validate_analysis). This fully clarifies usage vs. siblings and constraints.

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