generate_clips

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by detailing the return JSON structure (project_id, status, poll_url, estimated_minutes) and the async behavior with optional callback. There is no contradiction with annotations. Minor missing details like error handling or rate limits prevent a 5.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second describes return, third explains async usage. Front-loaded with key information, no redundant phrases.

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 description adequately covers the return structure, async nature, and polling/callback options. Without an output schema, it provides sufficient context for an async job initiation tool. Could mention error responses or limits, but not essential.

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 coverage is 100% and parameters are well-described in the schema. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so score remains at baseline 3.

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 'Start' and the resource 'AI clip generation from a YouTube video', which precisely defines the tool's action. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_clip and get_project_status.

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 explicitly explains that processing is asynchronous and provides two methods for obtaining results: polling via get_project_status every 10-15 seconds or providing a callback_url for a webhook. This gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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