resolve_create_bin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (create) but does not disclose side effects, whether the bin is created in the currently loaded project, what happens if the name already exists, or whether it requires an open project. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 very short and front-loaded with the action and resource. The Args section is redundant with the schema but not harmful. It earns its place with no wasted words, though the Args block could be considered unnecessary 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 a simple schema (1 param) and an output schema exists, but the description lacks context about the required state (e.g., a loaded project), error conditions, and the meaning of the return value. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is incomplete. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate or what prerequisites must be met.

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 must compensate. It does explain the 'name' parameter ('Name for the new bin'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Name' title. However, it doesn't specify constraints like uniqueness, allowed characters, or whether nested paths are supported. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds some value but not rich detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new bin (subfolder) in the media pool'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_import_media or resolve_create_timeline. It could be slightly more explicit about the media pool context, but the parenthetical clarification helps.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must have a project loaded, must be in the media pool). The context is implied by the name and description, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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