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

Annotations declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: saved inputs are kept, and an empty/omitted clip_ids moves every eligible clip. It does not address idempotency or failure/partial-move semantics, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the successor identifier before moving into parameters and the follow-up workflow. Dense with colon-heavy clauses, but each sentence carries actionable content rather than 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?

For a mutation with a nested body and an output schema, the description covers the trigger, parameter behavior, preserved state, and the downstream remediation workflow. An agent has everything needed to call it and handle both moved and withoutSuccessor outcomes.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates by explaining both body parameters: clip_ids (omit to move every clip with a successor) and composition_id (the active composition when omitted). projectId is left to the schema's '(path)' note. This meaningfully fills the coverage gap.

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 precise verb and resource: moving clips that pin a retired TSX (v3) component to its native (v4) successor. It names the exact sibling signals (get_composition's needsUpgrade, component_source_retired refusal) that identify this task, so an agent can distinguish it from update_component, create_component, and apply_composition immediately.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition (needsUpgrade / component_source_retired refusal) and the follow-up path for the withoutSuccessor results (create_component then apply_composition at the same timing and placement). The when-to-use, what-to-do-with-output, and sibling handoffs are all spelled out.

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