bdesign_editor_diagnostics

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description's 'Diagnose' wording is consistent with it — no contradiction. The description adds context on what checks are performed (gaps, overlaps, missing media, etc.) but says nothing about the return format, whether it produces a report, or what happens when no issues are found. With the annotation carrying the read-only signal, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that wastes no words, leading with the verb and listing the diagnostic targets compactly. It earns a 4 rather than 5 only because it could convey a bit more (such as output shape) without adding bulk.

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 read-only, single-parameter diagnostics tool this is mostly complete: the checks are enumerated and the annotation covers safety. However, with no output schema, the description should say what the tool returns (a report, a list of issues, etc.), and that is missing. Required parameters showing 0 with a projectId present is also mildly ambiguous, though likely a schema artifact.

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 should compensate, but there is only a single self-explanatory parameter, projectId. The parameter's meaning (the project to diagnose) is obvious from its name and the tool's purpose, so the description adds little beyond what the schema implies. The description adds no syntax or formatting details, which is acceptable for a single trivially-clear ID parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Diagnose') and lists concrete targets: gaps, overlaps, missing media, duration mismatches, and tiny clips. This clearly states what the tool does and naturally distinguishes it from siblings like bdesign_editor_view or bdesign_editor_get, none of which claim diagnostic scope. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly name what it is not or reference the project context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Nothing states that it should be used before editing to validate a project, or when to prefer it over bdesign_editor_view or bdesign_canvas_get. No exclusions or conditions are provided, so an agent must infer the appropriate call context.

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