katto_more_clips

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

Annotations declare this is not read-only and not idempotent; the description supplies the behavior that matters given that profile: it consumes no video quota, is capped by reserve remaining, appends to the existing job rather than creating a new one, and must not be retried while a request is pending. It also enumerates the status values so the caller can branch correctly.

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?

Purpose and trigger come first, then the quota/side-effect facts, then the return contract and follow-up. Dense but every sentence carries operational information; nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by documenting the return shape (status, requested, remaining) and the meaning of each status value. For a 2-parameter, non-destructive queueing tool this covers everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% and the schema already documents both id and count, including the 1-10 range and default 5. The description largely restates those constraints; the only added nuance is that the cap is dynamic ('capped by what is left'), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Render more clips from a job's reserve') plus the selection policy ('moments Katto scored but did not render, best first'). This clearly separates it from katto_create_clip_job (new job) and katto_get_clips (read/poll), so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants more clips from the same video'), an explicit do-not-call condition ('pending means a request is already running (do not call again)'), and a concrete follow-up action ('poll katto_get_clips'). It also names the exhaustion case ('empty'), so the agent knows when to stop.

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