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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the key consequence: other angles' clips are DISABLED, not deleted, making every switch re-decidable — a non-obvious reversibility guarantee that a destructiveHint=false flag alone does not convey. It also states the refusal condition ('chosen track has no clip at the frame') and the linked-audio side effect, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('MULTICAM angle switch') and every sentence carries information. The heavy em-dash/parenthetical style makes it dense and slightly run-on, but nothing is filler.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers preconditions, reversibility, audio coupling, defaults, and one failure mode — enough to call it correctly and anticipate effects. It stops short of describing what the call returns (e.g. new cut points) or other error conditions.

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 coverage is already 100%, yet the description still adds meaning: `angleTrackIds` defaults to every video track with a clip under the frame, and the cut extends 'to the next cut'. These defaults and scoping rules go beyond the terse schema strings, though `token`, `projectId`, and `timelineId` are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'razors the whole angle stack at `atFrame` and keeps only `chosenTrackId` live' — which is unmistakably distinct from generic siblings like split_clips or manage_tracks. The multicam framing in the opening sentence lets an agent route correctly without opening the schema.

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 preconditions ('sync them beforehand — clips of the same take on V1..Vn') and a decision rule for `audioFollowsVideo: false` ('the usual choice when one good mic carries the sound'). It also explains the iterative workflow ('cut again with a different angle to change your mind'), though it never names an adjacent sibling such as split_clips or manage_tracks as an alternative.

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