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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the '[read]' tag is redundant. The description earns credit by disclosing the return shape in detail: a per-lane summary by default (clip counts, first clip per lane, transition/marker counts) versus full clip lists when `track_id` is supplied. With no output schema, this behavioral disclosure carries real weight.

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?

Front-loaded with the core fact (a real, valid VideoProject), then variants, then default return shape, then the override. Dense and mostly waste-free. The nesting of parenthetical detail in a single long sentence makes it slightly harder to scan than it could be.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers both inputs and both return modes thoroughly. Gaps are minor: it doesn't say what happens with an unrecognized `name` or `track_id`, nor how this differs from the sibling overview/catalog tools.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden — and it does: it enumerates the valid `name` values ('empty', 'demo') with the default behavior, and gives concrete `track_id` examples ('title', 'sfx', 'v1') plus the non-lane pseudo-values 'transitions' and 'markers'. This is meaning the schema cannot supply on its own.

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 resource with specifics: it returns a real, valid `VideoProject`, with two named variants ('empty' blank document, 'demo' 60s showreel). An agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools `video_editor_catalog` and `video_editor_overview`, which plausibly overlap.

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 thoroughly explains mode selection (default summary vs. per-track drill-down vs. transitions/markers), which is useful routing within the tool. But it gives no guidance on when to call this instead of `video_editor_overview` or `video_editor_catalog`, nor any prerequisites, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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