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

The description clearly discloses the mutating behavior (REPLACE, everything else is cut), project-scoping, the returned project identity, and the boundary-moving semantics of snap_to_words. Since annotations provide no positive safety signals, the description carries the disclosure burden and meets it fully.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: scope/return, core replace semantics, when-to-use/alternatives, and the optional parameter behavior. Critical warnings are front-loaded.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and no helpful annotations, the description covers prerequisites, exact input semantics, scope constraint, return expectation, and disambiguation from siblings. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only project_id has a schema description, but the prose defines segments fully and snap_to_words semantically. The project_id schema text is itself detailed and reinforces the explicit-scope rule.

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 precise action: REPLACE the whole keep list of source-video survivals as [[start,end],...] in seconds. This distinguishes it from cut_range/restore_range and aligns with the name without tautology.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use only for wholesale restructuring, always after get_edl — for local fixes prefer cut_range/restore_range.' This gives both a precondition and named alternatives, so an agent knows when not to use it.

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