Create Variants

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context that the tool consumes 3 orchyn credits, which is important for agents managing costs, and also specifies the output structure of the variants.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds cost and usage context. Minor formatting issue with the missing space after 'credits.Use' is negligible but prevents a perfect score.

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?

Between the description, full schema coverage, annotations, and presence of an output schema, an agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call this tool. It covers cost, output content, and the required post-to-variants workflow.

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%, so the parameters are already documented clearly in the input schema. The description does not add much parameter-level detail beyond that, staying at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the action: turning an analyzed post into filmable variants, with a specific outcome (hook, angle, shot beats, CTA). It differentiates from sibling tools like analyze_post by moving from 'why it worked' to 'what to make.'

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use after analysing a post,' and explains the transition from analysis to creation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sequencing is clear and actionable.

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