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

Annotations already establish that this is non-readonly, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful behavior by stating that timing, effects, animation, and look are preserved. It does not cover failure modes or side effects on the original media, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It communicates the core operation and its key preservation behavior efficiently.

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 simple three-parameter mutation, the description explains what changes and what is preserved. However, it leaves low-coverage parameters and alternative-tool routing to inference. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 33%, with projectId being the only documented parameter. The description conceptually maps to clipIds and mediaId but adds no detail about multiplicity, accepted identifiers, or the projectId default. With low coverage, it does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 and resource: it swaps footage under clips for another media item. It also clarifies what is preserved, which helps distinguish it from general clip updates. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 preservation of timing, effects, animation, and look implies the use case: replacing footage without disrupting edits. However, it never names alternatives such as update_clip or update_media, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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