create_text_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a standalone clip and hints at its life cycle by referencing overlay_clip. It does not mention details like return format, but the output schema covers that. Slight gap on side effects (e.g., whether the clip is stored persistently), but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose, and includes a critical usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a straightforward creation tool with 7 well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role and the key workflow (using overlay_clip), which covers the contextual need.

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%, with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters (e.g., text, font, color, font_size). The description itself adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a standalone text clip (titles, captions, credits).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool overlay_clip by explaining the difference between creating a clip and overlaying it.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'To place text ON TOP of a video, create it here and then use overlay_clip with position and timing.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative, making the decision clear.

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