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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value on top: it names exactly what is destroyed and, importantly, states that earlier edit versions remain recoverable and that a NEW version is created rather than the existing one being mutated in place. It does not mention any permission or confirmation requirement, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the effect on the source and followed by the reversibility note. No filler, no restating of the title or name.

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 one-parameter destructive reset with no output schema, the definition covers what is discarded and whether the action is recoverable, which is the critical information. Minor gaps remain around what the call returns (for example, a new version identifier) and whether further edits must target the returned version.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema already carries a full description of project_id, including the caveat that the navigation pointer does not select the target. The tool description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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 gives a concrete verb and resource: it creates a new edit version rebuilt from the full original source. It also enumerates what is stripped (cuts, captions, tracks, effects), which makes the result unambiguous. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so an agent must infer on its own that this is different from the many remove_* / cut_* tools.

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 intent is easy to infer: use this to throw away the current cut and rebuild from source. However, the description never states when this is preferable to targeted removal tools (remove_text, remove_overlay, cut_range) or what preconditions apply. There is no explicit when-not or alternative routing.

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