reorder_scenes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention that omitted ids are dropped, which is helpful. However, it misleadingly says 'apply it and re-render' without noting that re-rendering is optional and costs credits (as specified in the schema). This could cause an agent to assume re-render always happens. It also omits details about the default job_id and the timeline-only edit mode.

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 tool's purpose, then clear usage instructions. Every phrase earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

The description covers the two main modes (list and reorder) and mentions the return format for listing (id + label + time). However, it misses critical context about the `render` parameter (cost and default false) and the optional `job_id` default. These gaps make it incomplete for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; it repeats the `order` parameter's behavior (omitted ids are removed) and does not discuss `job_id` or `render` at all. The schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('See or reorder') with a clear resource (the A-roll's backbone scenes in a Swap & Refine project). It clearly distinguishes the tool's dual list/apply functionality from sibling tools like swap_clip and trim_clip.

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 explicit usage instructions: call with no `order` to list, call with `order` to apply. It implies the context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. Still, the guidance is clear enough to select this tool over siblings.

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