create_caption_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely restates the core function and parameter usage without mentioning side effects, prerequisites beyond import, error potential, or return behavior. The phrase 'Pass the SRT project item ID directly' adds a parameter hint but is already in the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every phrase serves a purpose, such as clarifying the import prerequisite and the direct ID passing.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main use case and prerequisite but omits return values, error handling, or post-creation behavior. It is adequate for a simple creation tool but leaves gaps in behavioral context that annotations or a richer description would fill.

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 100%, so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, providing an example (.srt) and emphasizing to pass the project item ID directly, but this does not fundamentally enhance understanding beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Creates' and the resource 'caption track on a sequence', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'read_sequence_captions' which reads captions. The example of .srt and mention of import_media provide concrete context.

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 clear usage context by specifying that the caption file must be imported via import_media and instructs to pass the project item ID directly. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context implies the workflow.

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