create_videofactory_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. It says the tool 'creates' a folder, implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting existing files, required permissions, or failure behavior. It also doesn't state what happens if the folder already exists or if the product_id is invalid.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the most critical details (path, number of scenes, file structure). No filler or repetition; every word contributes.

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?

The description is fairly brief for a tool that assembles a multi-file project. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., the full path) or mention any dependencies on sibling tools (e.g., storyboard generation). Given no output schema and no annotations, this gap prevents full completeness, though the main deliverable is clearly stated.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters ('product_id' and 'voice_engine') are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('VideoFactory (AIEV) project folder') with concrete details (6 CRO scenes, meta.json, assets) and a precise path template. It is clearly distinct from all siblings, which involve searching, auditing, extracting, reviewing, or storyboarding—none of which create a project folder.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It doesn't mention that it likely depends on a prior storyboard or product intelligence step, nor does it state when not to use it. The sibling 'generate_video_storyboard' suggests a pipeline, but the description leaves that implicit.

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