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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: the paginated scenes shape, music timing in seconds, and the notable fallback where an empty audio_library match returns the library's moods and genres. It does not disclose auth or rate-limit traits, but those are minor here.

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 tight, action-scoped clauses with no filler or repetition. It is slightly under-structured at the front, opening on 'scenes:' rather than a one-line statement of what the tool is, forcing the reader to assemble overall purpose from name and title.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the return-shape details (scenes object with total/offset/returned, music tracks, fallback listings) carry useful load, and the action enum covers the three modes. What is missing is only light framing (prerequisites for project_id, pagination guidance) already handled by the 100%-covered schema.

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 every parameter (including the action enum, mood, genre, limit, offset, search, category, include_composition) is already documented in the schema. The description adds return-format context ('timed in seconds') but little that clarifies the parameters themselves, so the baseline 3 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 enumerates the three actions and what each returns (scenes timeline, music tracks, audio_library tracks), so the resource is identifiable per action. It never states the top-level verb+resource explicitly (the reader infers 'read editor data' from name/title), and only partially differentiates from siblings by naming editor_edit for the audio_library case.

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?

There is implicit routing: audio_library results are 'tracks to add with editor_edit', which frames this as the read counterpart to the edit tool, and the no-match fallback (listing moods/genres) is noted. But there is no explicit 'use this when you need to inspect X' statement or clear when-not guidance across the three actions.

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