Get clip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that render status transitions to 'done' and that render diagnostics are part of the response, implying eventual-consistency/polling semantics. It stops short of stating polling cadence, rate limits, or freshness guarantees.

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?

Front-loads the scope in one sentence, then the return behavior, then the sibling/polling guidance. The long field enumeration is dense but earns its place since there is no output schema; only minor trimming is possible.

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, the description compensates by listing the returned contents and confirming 'Returns the clip object', and it covers the read-only nature via annotations plus the render-polling lifecycle. An agent has everything needed to call 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% and the single 'id' param is already documented in the schema (from get_project or search_clips). The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Everything about one clip') and then enumerates the concrete payload (text, bounds, scores, framing, style, intro/outro, render diagnostics, links), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_project', which returns clips only in brief.

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?

Names the alternative (get_project for a brief list of all clips) and the condition that selects it, plus a concrete follow-up workflow: 'poll this after an edit to see the render finish (status done)'. The agent can route between list-view and single-clip-view without guessing.

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