cassette_create_trend

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is a single sentence without disclosing any behavioral traits. It does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new database entry), idempotency, auth requirements, or error conditions. The description carries the full burden but fails to provide any behavioral context beyond a vague action.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence), but it fails to earn its place by providing minimal information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Every sentence should add value, but this one adds only a vague action and resource.

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 low complexity (3 flat parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is still insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, or any contextual completeness. The agent would need to guess the behavior from the tool name and siblings.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. The description does not explain the purpose or format of the url, title, or notes parameters. For example, whether the url must be a specific type of video URL or what constitutes a valid title is unclear.

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 'Save a trend video URL' indicates the action (save) and resource (trend video URL), but it lacks clarity on whether this creates a new trend resource. The tool name suggests creation, but the description uses 'save', which is ambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like cassette_create_clip by mentioning 'trend', but does not explicitly state the purpose of creating a trend.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cassette_start_clip_from_trend or cassette_list_trends. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent has to infer context from the tool name alone.

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