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

With annotations covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds real behavioral context: the clip lands at the end of the timeline and also in the project's media, is ready to play and export, and consumes no tokens. It does not explicitly address what happens if the same URL is added twice (non-idempotent), but the append-to-end semantics imply duplication.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and source, followed by placement outcome and the cost note. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers input source, resulting placement, media side-effect, and cost, while annotations carry safety. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (e.g., unreachable URL, invalid project_id) and repeat-call behavior.

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 all four parameters including optional name and seconds are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the https-link nature of url, adding no further syntax or format detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (put/place), resource (video), and target (Switch Editor project timeline), and states the input is an https link. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like upload_editor_media or add_editor_library_assets, which handle media ingestion rather than timeline placement.

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?

Gives clear usage context: the video must be a finished, owned asset from an https link (InVideo export, Switch render), and explains the resulting placement at the end of the timeline. It does not name an explicit alternative or when-not to use it versus upload_editor_media, so it stops short of the top band.

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