Ui (destructive)

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

Annotations already declare destructive/not-idempotent/non-open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the mandatory two-phase plan + confirm_token apply flow, and the rationale that selection is not API-readable. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what happens to locked/other-track clips.

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?

Four short lines: resource statement, action/params, confirm-flow caveat, then the batching escape hatch. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction and the destructive apply semantics are stated right where the action is defined.

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?

Output schema and the dry_run/snapshot/confirm_token schema fields cover returns and safety, and the description covers the plan/apply loop. For a UI-automation destructive tool, however, it omits prerequisites (host app state, active panel, an existing selection), which an agent needs before calling.

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 baseline is 3, but the schema's op description punts to "see the description or describe_action", and the description actually fills that gap by naming the action and its parameters. dry_run/snapshot/confirm_token are documented in the schema, so nothing further is needed.

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 top line ("Remove ui objects") is vague, but the action list supplies a concrete verb+resource: "Ripple delete the selected timeline clips via the UI." That also implicitly distinguishes it from the API-driven timeline_delete sibling, though the distinction is never made explicit at the tool level.

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?

It explicitly routes bulk/repeated work to batch_run ("Calls known in advance... ONE batch_run"), which is real alternative-selection guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over timeline_delete or what to do if nothing is selected, so the guidance is clear but incomplete.

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