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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it is a mutation. The description specifies the mutation types (move, volume/mute adjustment), but adds no details on permissions, reversibility, or side effects. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but could be structured with a usage note or parameter clarification without becoming verbose.

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 five parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits behavioral details (side effects, permissions), parameter semantics, and usage guidance that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 20% (only project_id is documented). The description mentions volume/mute and implies movement, but does not explain start_time_ms, clip_id, or the required project_id beyond what the schema provides. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Move a clip or adjust its volume/mute' and adds scope 'on any secondary track'. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like studio.move_clips_to_track or studio.set_track_muted.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'on any secondary track' is a constraint, but it does not name alternatives or explain when this tool should be chosen over studio.move_clips_to_track or studio.trim_clip.

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