assign_role

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (set a role) without revealing side effects (e.g., file modification, role validation, overwrite behavior). Key traits like destructiveness or error handling are absent.

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 action. It avoids fluff but is perhaps overly brief, missing opportunities to add structure (e.g., listing optional vs required). Still, it earns its place without wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (modifying a clip in an XML file) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or what happens when the output_path parameter is omitted. The schema provides some offset for parameters, but the tool's overall behavior remains underspecified.

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% – all 5 parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not elaborate on parameter interdependencies (e.g., when both audio_role and video_role are provided) or constraints.

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 sets an audio or video role on a clip with examples (dialogue, music, effects, titles), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_roles (which lists roles) and filter_by_role (which filters by role). However, it does not explicitly mention that it operates on a FCPXML file, which is implied by the filepath parameter.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios. Given the large set of sibling tools, explicit usage context would significantly aid correct selection.

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