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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'footage returns to normal speed and program-time items re-anchor automatically.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict side effects. No contradiction found.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the project-scoped warning, and contains no fluff. Every clause earns its place: scope, action, id source, and behavioral consequences.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, behavior, and return (project identity). It doesn't mention error cases or what happens if the id is invalid, but for this simple operation the essential information is present. The output is partially described ('returns the project identity'), which is sufficient.

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 50% (only project_id has a description). The description compensates by telling the agent to get the id from get_edl, which is essential context for the otherwise undocumented id parameter. It also reinforces the project_id requirement by noting the call is project-scoped. This adds meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one speed span by its id' with a clear reference to get_edl for the id. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like set_speed or remove_zoom by focusing on speed spans, and explicitly scopes to a project via project_id. This is precise and unambiguous.

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 tells the agent to 'see get_edl' to obtain the id, which is a necessary prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., when modifying speed rather than removing), but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the context. It could be improved by naming alternatives, but it provides adequate guidance.

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