Project Start

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at an interactive prompting flow ('asking the user for any missing format parameters'), which is real context, but omits whether the call blocks on user input, what gets persisted, whether defaults are applied silently, and whether it is destructive or idempotent.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. The interactive behavior is front-loaded well enough, yet almost nothing is said.

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?

Five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a near-identical sibling tool. The existence of an output schema relieves the description of return-value explanation, but the input and behavioral sides remain largely unfilled.

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 0% across five parameters. The phrase 'format parameters' gestures vaguely at style/aspect_ratio but never names brief, style, theme, clip_count or aspect_ratio, so the agent learns nothing about required input or the meaning of the optional ones.

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 verb ('Start') and resource ('project'), but the sibling tool project_create makes the same claim, and nothing in the description distinguishes starting a project from creating one. An agent cannot tell which to pick from the text alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this rather than project_create, no prerequisites, no follow-up steps. The only usage hint is an implicit interaction ('asking the user'), which is not framed as a condition for choosing this tool.

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