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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the genuinely useful partial-update contract (unmentioned fields are untouched), but says nothing about permissions, side effects of cascading model fields, or the fact that `transitions` is a destructive full replacement rather than a merge.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the partial-update behavior second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits any note on the cascading defaults (defaultImageModel/defaultVideoModel), the complete-replacement semantics of `transitions`, or auth expectations. The rich schema compensates for much of this, but the description itself leaves behavioral gaps.

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 100% across all 14 parameters, so the schema already documents each field's meaning and defaults. The description adds only the generic partial-update rule and no per-parameter semantics beyond it, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing edit') and disambiguates the jargon with '(project)', which separates it from update_shot, update_scene, update_transition, and update_workspace. It does not explicitly name any sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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 partial-update statement implies you can call it to patch a single field, which is useful usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus update_shot/update_scene, nor any prerequisite or caution about the whole-list replacement behavior of `transitions`.

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