Create media bin

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it details the internal pipeline (Movie File In, Switch, Null), exposed controls (Index, Next/Prev, Crossfade), error handling for empty/missing folders, and the crossfade mechanism (ramping fractional index). It also notes that folder reading happens inside TD, a non-obvious execution detail. No contradiction with annotations present.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then delivers structured, non-redundant details: pipeline, controls, error behavior, and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and performs a complex build operation, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the resulting component structure, exposed controls, failure mode, execution context, and intended use cases. An agent would know exactly what to expect and how to decide whether to invoke this 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds context that connects parameters to behavior: 'filtered to the given extensions, capped at max_clips' directly explains the extensions and max_clips parameters, and the crossfade description clarifies the crossfade parameter's semantics. It also implies how 'name' and 'parent_path' are used within the 'new bin COMP' context. This goes beyond the schema's property 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('build a clip BIN inside a new bin COMP') and resource, and explains the workflow (scan folder, create Movie File In TOPs, feed through Switch, end on Null). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_video_player, eliminating 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use create_video_player for a hand-listed playlist; use create_media_bin to ingest a whole folder for clip-based VJing.' Also clarifies that the folder is read inside TD rather than the MCP server, which is a critical prerequisite. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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