Remix project

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

Annotations mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive, so the mutation risk is already structured. The description adds important operational context beyond annotations: CONVERT_IMAGES_TO_VIDEOS is expensive, and the operation is asynchronous enough to require polling with list_project_remix_actions.

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 sentences are front-loaded with the core action, then a cost warning and the polling instruction. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists and parameter descriptions are complete, so return values need not be explained. The description covers cost and polling status, but it leaves implicit how remix_project relates to other project-creation siblings.

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 schema already explains each edit enum value in detail, including the same expensive/cheap distinction. The description repeats some of that meaning but adds no syntax or format details beyond the structured schema.

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 verb and resource: "Apply curated edits to an existing project." It also names the polling sibling, list_project_remix_actions, but does not explicitly distinguish remix_project from other project-creation or editing siblings like storyboard_to_video or update_entity.

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?

It gives clear guidance on choosing between edit types: CONVERT_IMAGES_TO_VIDEOS is expensive, while ZOOM is cheap Ken Burns motion. It also says to poll with list_project_remix_actions for status, but it does not state when to use remix_project instead of alternative video-generation tools.

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