add_camera_cut

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it auto-creates the camera cut track if absent, and it returns a 'saved'/'save_error' pair implying the sequence is persisted automatically.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, with the auto-create side-effect following and the return shape last. Two sentences plus a return block are tight and each element carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the full return shape (sequence name, binding GUID, frame range, section class/count, save status), and the annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to call this mutation correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the inclusive/exclusive frame semantics. The description restates the frame range and camera binding conceptually but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Adds a camera cut section bound to a camera binding over a frame range') with clear scope. It implicitly contrasts with the dedicated add_camera_cut_track sibling by noting track auto-creation, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the description of the operation. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the closely related add_camera_cut_section / add_camera_cut_track siblings.

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