Edit a video with afterAI

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: it spends a credit, returns a job ID and tracking URL (async operation), and emails the finished video. It also specifies the input requirement that videoUrl must be a public direct link. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but the core side effects and async nature are well covered.

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 succinct and front-loaded, starting with the core action and then giving key behavioral details. Every sentence adds value: action, return value, cost, delivery method, and a pointer to the sibling tool. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool has 12 parameters and no output schema, but the description gives all essential context for invocation: the raw clip URL must be public, the operation is async with a job ID and tracking URL, it costs a credit, and the result is emailed. It also tells the user to use check_status for follow-up. Combined with a rich schema, this is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'videoUrl must be a public, direct link' simply repeats the schema's description). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Submit a raw clip to afterAI's After Effects cloud pipeline.' It specifies the resource (afterAI pipeline), the verb (submit/edit), and the output (job id and tracking URL). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by pointing to check_status for progress.

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 context for when to use the tool: to submit a raw clip and start an edit job. It explicitly directs the user to 'Use check_status to follow progress,' naming an alternative for a related workflow. However, it does not offer explicit 'when not to use' guidance or mention the afterai_info sibling, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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