collapse_montage_segments

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses that the operation saves, and that a failed save yields saved=false plus a save_error, letting an agent anticipate partial failure. There is a minor wobble in phrasing 'success false' versus the returned 'saved' field, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core behavior, followed by a compact return-field listing. No filler, and the mutation semantics come first. The returns line is slightly dense but justified since no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (segment_count, applied, saved, save_error, message), which an agent could not otherwise know. It leaves the meaning of applied and segment_count unexplained, but combined with the annotations this is largely sufficient for a two-parameter mutation 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% and both montage_path and slot_name are self-describing and required. The description references the slot track being collapsed, which lightly contextualizes slot_name, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 (collapse) and resource (a montage slot track's segments) plus the transformation semantics (end-to-end, no gaps, order preserved). It does not differentiate itself from the nearby sort_montage_segments or add_montage_segment siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains what collapsing does but gives no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call it instead of sort_montage_segments or set_montage_segment_start_time.

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