create_projectCreates a new video project with a required name and optional brand ID and description, giving AI agents a structured project to build and edit.
Create a new project. Optional initial brandId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| brandId | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no auth/permission requirements, no note that name must be unique, no mention of what the call returns (e.g., the new project id) or whether brandId can be changed afterward.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and with zero filler. The second sentence is a fragment, and the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should say at least roughly what comes back, and it does not. For a simple three-parameter create tool the description is minimally adequate, but the unexplained `description` parameter and absent return-value note leave real gaps.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it. It clarifies that brandId is an 'initial' association (implying it can be changed later), but never mentions the `description` parameter at all and gives no constraints on `name`.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new project'), which is unambiguous against siblings like list_projects, get_project, and delete_project. It does not explicitly differentiate from create_brand_kit, but the resource noun does most of that work already.
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?
There is no guidance on when to create a project versus any alternative flow, no prerequisites, and no note about what happens next (e.g., whether brand association can be changed later). The agent must infer everything about invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.