generate

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It says structures are 'built' from source clips, hinting at creation, but does not state that this writes/modifies project files, what happens to existing timeline content, whether flatten_compound_clip is destructive, or what permissions are required. The sha256 guard and filepath handling live in the schema, not here.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the action list; there is no filler. The action enumeration is slightly redundant with the enum but is useful for quick scanning.

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?

Seven distinct operations share a single free-form args object with no output schema, yet the description gives no per-action argument requirements — an agent must infer what auto_rough_cut versus import_edl_json needs. Naming the actions is a start, but for this complexity the definition is only minimally adequate.

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 the args object already documents the filepath/expected_sha256 pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description's action list merely restates the enum values already in the schema, adding no per-action argument meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Build new timeline structure from source clips,' then enumerates the capabilities (rough cuts, montages, A/B roll, templates, compound clips). This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like edit or inspect, though it never names a sibling or explicitly draws the line between generating new structures and editing existing ones.

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: the seven listed actions tell the agent what kinds of operations exist, but there is no statement of when to choose generate over edit, or when one action is preferable to another (e.g. auto_rough_cut vs generate_montage). No exclusions, prerequisites, or sequencing guidance are given.

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