update_zoom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it discloses merge semantics (unspecified/unknown fields preserved), an automatic backup on save, and a clear non-effect (does not render or change video cuts). Missing are auth/permission requirements and what a revision conflict does, but the destructive-scope picture is solid.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences plus a targeted usage hint; every clause carries information with no filler. Slightly dense run-on in the first sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key concerns an agent needs: what can be changed, that unspecified data survives, that a backup exists, and that video cuts are untouched. Gaps remain around revision conflict behavior and project open/close sequencing (partially in the schema), keeping it from a 5.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate: it names the fields being edited (depth, focus, start/end, mode) and hints at mode semantics. It adds nothing for expectedRevision, dryRun, project path handling, or duration units (ms), leaving several parameters documented only sparsely or not at all.

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 (edit) and resource (one EXISTING zoom by ID) and enumerates the editable facets (depth, focus, start/end, mode). It contrasts cleanly with siblings like list_zooms and delete_zooms, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 one concrete usage hint (use mode=manual with fixed focus to avoid auto cursor-follow), which is genuinely actionable. However it never states when to reach for this tool versus list_zooms or delete_zooms, nor any preconditions beyond what the schema already says about project handling.

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