create_input

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 mentions the side effect of adding the input as a scene item, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., scene must exist), error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if input_kind is invalid or scene_name is empty. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the Args section is organized and scannable. Each line adds some value, though it partially duplicates schema property names. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and parameter semantics but omits the return value, error conditions, and prerequisites. It is adequate for a straightforward create tool but lacks completeness for scenarios like missing scenes or invalid kinds.

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%, yet the description compensates with meaningful explanations: input_kind references get_input_kind_list for valid values, input_settings is labeled as optional, and scene_item_enabled is clarified as 'starts visible'. It adds context beyond the bare property names, though it does not address what an empty scene_name means.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('input') and outcome ('add it as a scene item to a scene'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like remove_input, set_input_name, and create_scene_item by combining creation of the input with adding it to a scene.

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?

The description implies usage: use when you need to create an input and add it to a scene. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as create_scene_item (which might add an existing source to a scene). No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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