create_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses output format (H.264 MP4), audio normalization (-14 LUFS), burned-in captions, and session-state auto-loading. It also mentions the return of caption_overlay_path and cropped_source_path for the overlay option. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, but the export nature implies it; a small gap given no annotations.

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 slightly long but tightly structured: step number, quick-start tip, output spec, alternative tool, then option summaries. Every sentence earns its place; no filler. The 'EASIEST' tip is front-loaded for actionable clarity.

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 a tool with 14 optional parameters, the description is quite complete. It explains the majority workflow (auto-load via clip_number), key options (caption styles, crop modes, overlay), and points to related tools. Missing are error scenarios or prerequisites beyond session state, but schema descriptions fill in the rest, making it adequate.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining caption styles (branded, hormozi, karaoke, subtle) and crop modes (speaker, face, center) with parenthetical characteristics, plus the quick-start tip about clip_number. This goes beyond the schema's terse enum labels.

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 a specific verb ('export'), a single resource ('clip'), and the outcome ('finished vertical short (1080x1920, 9:16)') with output format details. It explicitly contrasts with batch_create_clips, making sibling differentiation clear without opening the 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'EASIEST: just pass clip_number' and clearly routes batch work to 'batch_create_clips instead.' It also references export_to_davinci_resolve for the overlay workflow, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose alternatives.

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