apply_native_resource

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

Beyond the annotations, the description clearly discloses side effects and important traits: it creates a new managed revision, never downloads resources, attaches transitions to the outgoing visual clip, and preserves the non-replaced phase for animations. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by targeted parameter and behavior clarifications. Every sentence adds meaning, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

Despite strong behavioral disclosure, the tool has eight parameters, five required, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema. The description does not explain critical required parameters like name, new_name, and clip_ids, nor optional controls like dry_run, include_plan, or duration. An agent would struggle to construct a fully correct invocation without additional information.

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 for undocumented parameters. It explains resource_kind and resource_name, but leaves name, new_name, clip_ids, duration, dry_run, and include_plan ambiguous. Given eight parameters, five required, this is a significant gap.

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 ('apply') and identifies the exact resource types: a transition or entrance/exit animation, with resource_kind values enumerated. It also distinguishes this from generic motion preset tools by emphasizing 'uniquely cached catalog-free' native resources.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: for outgoing-visual-clip transitions or entrance/exit animations, with resource_name sourced from list_native_resources. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives like apply_motion_preset, but the scoping is concrete enough for an agent to route correctly.

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