deliver

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that exports and push refuse to run on a cut without a rendered preview and explains the confirm_unreviewed=true escape hatch. However, it does not mention side effects, mutating behavior of reformat_timeline or relink_media, permissions, or output behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical behavioral warning. The action list overlaps with the enum but still usefully summarizes the tool's breadth without excessive detail.

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?

This is a multi-action dispatcher with a nested args object and no output schema. The description does not explain per-action required arguments, return values, or how args should be structured for each action. The confirm_unreviewed detail helps but is not enough to make the tool safely callable for all nine actions.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the confirm_unreviewed=true flag and connecting action names to concrete output formats and workflows, which helps disambiguate the generic args object.

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's purpose with a specific verb phrase ('Get the edit out') and resource (a cut/edit), and clearly differentiates it from siblings like inspect, diagnose, preview, and watch by focusing on export, reformat, relink, and push operations. It also names concrete outputs and actions.

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?

It gives a clear context for when to use the tool—when you need to export or move an edit elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for related tasks, instead leaving that mostly to sibling names and inference.

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