Create clips

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) it discloses two behavioral traits that matter operationally: the job is async and must be polled, and it consumes clipping minutes. What happens on job failure or how long processing takes is unstated, so it is not fully transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the async/polling contract, then the cost. Every clause carries distinct information with no 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?

For an async, quota-consuming creation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: the async job model, how to poll, and how to check cost. It leaves out return-shape hints (job id for polling) and failure/retry semantics, which an agent would still have to discover.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only re-describes channelIds as auto-posting targets and adds nothing on fit, maxClips, or idempotency beyond what the schema descriptions already say.

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 transformation ('cut a long video ... into short vertical clips') plus an optional side effect ('auto-posting them to channelIds'). That is clearly distinguishable from list_clips and get_clip, and the source type (YouTube or public URL) is named.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent this is asynchronous and to poll get_clip, and points at get_clip_usage for the quota cost — genuine follow-up routing. It stops short of stating preconditions (e.g. that channelIds requires connected accounts) or any when-not-to-use condition.

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