Create project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the key behavioral trait: the call is asynchronous, returns immediately with status 'queued', and the download/transcribe/pick/render pipeline runs for minutes. It also documents the return shape and the intro/outro defaulting behavior. It omits permission/auth requirements and rate limits, so not 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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return value, then the async lifecycle and the next-tool handoff, then defaults. No filler; every clause carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well: it explains the immediate return object, the background pipeline duration, and the follow-up call. Combined with a 100%-covered input schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters in detail, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only the intro/outro defaulting rule, which the schema's own parameter descriptions largely already state ('omitted = your default intro'), so the marginal value is small.

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 ('Start clipping a video from a URL') with the accepted source kinds enumerated (YouTube, Vimeo, direct link, anything yt-dlp fetches). This clearly distinguishes it from create_clip, which operates on already-analyzed clips.

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 routes the agent to the follow-up tool: 'the pipeline runs in the background for minutes, so follow with wait_for_project(id).' That is a clear when-to-use-next instruction. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. re-analyzing an existing project via reanalyze_project), so it falls short of a 5.

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