add_slomo_track

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the call scopes the section to the playback range, works headless/asset-level, and fully enumerates the return shape (track_added/section_added/saved/save_error). Minor tension exists between '(or return)' and idempotentHint=false, but the description is otherwise transparent.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, and the explicit return-shape block is warranted because no output schema exists. Slightly dense parenthetical phrasing, 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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract and the asset-level vs PIE scope, which is the key ambiguity. Only auth/permission requirements are unaddressed, a minor gap for an editor-side tool.

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 100%, so the three parameters (frame, dilation, sequence_name) and their defaults are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the meaning of 'frame' and 'dilation' in context ('float section over the playback range') but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Add'), the exact resource ('root time-dilation (slomo) track with a float section over the playback range'), and the effect ('setting the dilation value at a frame'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the PIE-only player play-rate, so an agent can tell it apart from the other sequence/track siblings.

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 a clear when-to-use context by contrasting 'asset-level/headless' operation with the PIE-only player play-rate, which is the main confusion risk. It doesn't, however, name any concrete sibling tool (e.g. set_level_sequence_time_runtime) as an alternative, so routing is contextual rather than explicit.

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