Timeline (destructive)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the non-obvious behavior that matters: the two-phase plan + confirm_token flow before anything applies, and that linked audio is not removed with clips. Those are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

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 one-line purpose followed by a scannable per-action list and two closing operational notes. It is longer than average but almost every line earns its place; the action list could have been trimmed toward describe_action rather than fully duplicated.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the confirm_token lifecycle, the destructive scope of delete_track, and the batch_run alternative. The remaining gap is that it does not clarify what snapshot/dry_run do relative to the confirm flow, leaving the interaction between those three parameters to inference.

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%, but the shared 'op' property is free-form (additionalProperties: true), so the description is what actually documents each action's required arguments (items, frame, color, timelines, track) and the optional ripple flag. It stops short of explaining value formats, e.g. what 'All' means as a color or what a timeline reference looks like.

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 and resource ("Remove timeline objects") and then enumerates each operation precisely, so an agent can distinguish timeline_delete from item_delete, media_delete, or project_delete without opening the schema. The parenthetical "(Edit page)" and "from the project" further scope each action.

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?

Gives a clear positive routing rule: known-in-advance or repeated-same-change work should go through batch_run instead. It does not explain when to prefer item_delete/media_delete over timeline_delete for a single clip, nor when dry_run/snapshot are advisable, so exclusions are only partial.

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