app_event_video_clips_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no indication that this is a write/mutation, no auth or permission requirements, no mention of side effects on the parent app event, no rate limits. It merely points at an external schema reference.

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?

It is short, but the endpoint is duplicated verbatim ('POST /v1/appEventVideoClips (POST /v1/appEventVideoClips)'), which is pure noise. The one substantive sentence is an unhelpful pointer to an external schema rather than usable content.

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 create tool with a nested, unstructured body object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the JSON:API envelope, required fields, and relationships to the app event. Instead it defers entirely to an OpenAPI component an agent cannot resolve, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already says the body shape is components.schemas.AppEventVideoClipCreateRequest. The description repeats that same reference verbatim, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Per the high-coverage baseline, 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 only restates the HTTP method and path ('POST /v1/appEventVideoClips') rather than stating in plain language what the tool does. An agent must infer from the name that it creates an App Event video clip; no verb+resource purpose is actually articulated, and it is not distinguished from siblings like app_event_video_clips_update_instance or app_event_screenshots_create_instance.

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 use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or which alternative to pick (e.g. update_instance, get_instance, delete_instance). The description contains no usage context whatsoever.

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