resolve_create_color_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a version is created, implying a mutation, but gives no details about side effects, requirements (e.g., active project/timeline), error conditions, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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 primary sentence followed by a bullet-point argument list. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple creation tool, the description covers the core operation and parameter meanings. However, it omits behavioral context such as error handling, preconditions (e.g., clip at playhead), and return value expectations. Since an output schema exists but is not described, the agent lacks full guidance on what to expect after calling the tool.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema: it names the 'name' parameter and explains that 'version_type' uses 0 for local (default) and 1 for remote. This clarifies the integer values and their semantics, which the schema does not provide. However, it does not elaborate on what 'remote' implies.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'new color version on the clip at the playhead', making the primary action unambiguous. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like resolve_load_color_version and resolve_list_color_versions, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 versus alternatives such as loading or listing color versions. The description only explains what the tool does, not the context or prerequisites (e.g., a clip must be present at the playhead) or when to prefer it over siblings.

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