bdesign_editor_edit

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, which cover retry safety and destructive potential. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as atomicity of the operation batch, failure behavior, or the effect of expectedRevision. Since annotations already cover the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate—the description neither contradicts nor enriches the behavioral picture.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Apply incremental timeline operations') and then enumerates examples. It is concise and easy to scan, with no filler or redundancy. A slightly more explicit enumeration of operation types would improve it, but it remains efficient.

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?

This is a complex tool with 5 parameters and a deeply nested operations array containing 17 distinct operation variants. The description gives only a high-level list and omits critical context: the exact operation types, required fields per type, semantics of each operation, error handling, and the role of expectedRevision. Without an output schema, the description leaves an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.

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 must compensate. It lists some operation type names (e.g., 'add', 'trim', 'split') but does not explain the structure of the operations array, the required fields per operation type, or the meaning of top-level parameters like commandId, projectId, idempotencyKey, or expectedRevision. The list of operations is a hint but not sufficient for an agent to construct valid calls.

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 clearly states the tool applies incremental timeline operations and lists a broad range of operation types (media add/update, trim, split, move, remove, audio, Takes, captions, SRT). This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like view, history, and render, and is not a tautology. However, it uses 'such as' and omits several operation types from the schema (e.g., set_clip_duration, replace_overlay_asset, set_render), so it is not fully precise.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the primary mutation tool for timeline edits, nor does it direct users to view or snapshot tools for inspection. There is no mention of prerequisites like projectId or when to use specific operation types.

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