create_series

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that this operation creates a new resource and discloses some parameter behavior, such as force_external_tts forcing an external TTS voiceover. However, it does not address idempotency, duplicate-name behavior, permission requirements, or any side effects beyond creating the series. This is adequate but not fully transparent for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a tight, structured Args list. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema. Given the need to document nine parameters without schema descriptions, the length is justified and every line earns its place.

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 complexity of nine parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete for invoking the tool correctly. It covers all parameter semantics, required fields, and important operational details. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be explained. Minor gaps remain around duplicate handling and prerequisites, but the tool can be used correctly from this description alone.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by documenting all nine parameters with meaningful detail. It provides format guidance for channel_id (UUID or slug), examples for production_mode, wireKey examples for video_model, and explains the behavior of force_external_tts. This goes well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new video series (batch) in a channel.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_series and update_series_settings, and the channel scoping differentiates it from channel-level tools. The parenthetical 'batch' also clarifies the domain concept without ambiguity.

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 usage context is implied: use this when a new series needs to be created in a specific channel. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions such as 'use update_series_settings to modify an existing series' or 'use generate_video_batch to produce videos.' The guidance is sufficient but entirely implicit.

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