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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), and the description aligns: 'Retime' is a mutation, not destructive. The description adds value by specifying project scoping, the return value ('returns the project identity'), and what it preserves ('Keeps which sound and how loud'). It does not contradict annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the critical project-scoping note, then the core purpose, then a useful preservation detail, then a practical source hint for 'id'. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return ('returns the project identity with its result') and the scoping. It covers purpose, source of id, and what is preserved. However, it omits the exact meaning of 'at' (units or format), which is a minor gap for a simple 3-parameter tool. Overall, it is mostly 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 coverage is only 33% (only project_id has a description). The description compensates partially: it explains that 'id' comes from get_edl and implies 'at' is the new time via 'Retime' and the example. However, it does not specify units or format for 'at' (e.g., seconds, frames), and 'at' remains ambiguous for precise invocation. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully cover the undocumented parameters.

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 ('Retime') and resource ('existing sound effect'), with an example ('the whoosh is too early'). It also clarifies what it does not change ('Keeps which sound and how loud'), distinguishing it from add/remove operations. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like add_sfx or remove_sfx.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (retiming an existing sound effect) and tells the user where to get the id ('id from get_edl'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., 'use add_sfx for new sounds'), leaving some inference required. The project-scoping note adds a usage constraint.

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