create_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully signal asynchrony via 'Queue' (the job goes to Media Encoder rather than completing inline). It omits what happens to an existing proxy, whether Media Encoder must be running, and how to follow up on the queued job (get_status).

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?

One compact sentence with the key noun (proxy creation) and the required input type front-loaded. It is efficient but underspecified rather than dense — a second sentence on follow-up or overwrite behavior would earn its place.

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 job-submitting operation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves out the outcome: what the returned queued state means, whether an existing proxy is replaced, and how completion is observed. Everything needed to identify the call is present, but not everything needed to use it safely.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with their sources. The description only reinforces that presetPath should be an ingest/proxy .epr, adding no format or validation detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb ('queue proxy creation') and resource ('project item ... in Media Encoder'), plus the exact artifact needed ('ingest/proxy preset (.epr)'). It is reasonably distinguishable from attach_proxy/toggle_proxies by its focus on generating a proxy rather than attaching or switching existing ones, though that contrast is never made explicit.

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 intent (create proxies for a project item) is implied and the preset prerequisite appears via the schema reference to get_export_presets with filter 'proxy'. There is no explicit when-to-use vs attach_proxy, no note about AME needing to be running, and no statement about what to do when a proxy already exists.

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