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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains the auto-fit rule, the 1-second floor, the headless under-fit edge case involving source_out_frame null, and the eventual self-correction in the editor.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds a clearly marked and necessary caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information without fluff or repetition.

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 the simple one-parameter API, the description covers the core behavior, side effects, and an important edge case. It does not explicitly describe the return value or error behavior, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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?

There is only one parameter, projectId, and the schema description already fully explains it as an opaque UUID selecting the project to mutate. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline schema coverage score applies.

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 clear action ('Clear an authored composition length') on a specific resource (composition duration) and explains the resulting behavior (AUTO-FIT tracking the furthest content). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool set_duration by explicitly labeling itself as the inverse.

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 clearly implies when to use it: after an authored duration has been set, to revert to auto-fit. It names set_duration as the counterpart, giving the agent a route to the alternative, though it does not spell out explicit 'use X instead' exclusions.

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