openclip_create

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it runs Autodesk's dl_get_media_info, requires a Flame/mio install, notes that Flame 2027 rejects hand-rolled XML, and explains the zero silent defaults behavior. This is rich, honest disclosure beyond 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the primary action, then explains versioning, technical prerequisites, and selection behavior. It is structured logically and avoids fluff.

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?

For a complex tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, technical prerequisites, selection logic, and fallback behavior. It even mentions the return of choice_required. The presence of an output schema further covers return values, so nothing important 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?

The description adds significant semantic meaning to parameters: it clarifies the precedence of task_id over step, the deprecation of fps and clip_name, and the output_path warning about media directory placement. Even though context signals report 0% schema coverage, the actual schema has descriptions, and the tool description further compensates with operational details like choice_required behavior.

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 clearly states the tool writes a versioned Flame Open Clip for a shot's published render sequences, with one feed per publish version and current set to highest. This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like sg_create or cut_to_edl.

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 explicitly explains when to use task_id vs step, that omitting both returns a choice_required with candidate Tasks, and that the tool never assumes which step feeds the conform. It also advises regenerating after each new publish version, providing clear context and exclusions.

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