generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists action names like flatten_compound_clip and import_edl_json. It does not explain side effects, whether operations mutate existing projects, required project state, or return behavior, leaving the tool mostly a black box.

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 concise and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a compact action list. There is no filler, and the structure makes the tool's scope immediately scannable.

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?

The tool exposes seven distinct operations with a nested args object, yet the description provides no per-action argument guidance, output expectations, or usage caveats. No annotations or output schema compensate, so the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 action enum and args object are already documented. The description repeats the action list but adds no additional meaning about what arguments each action needs or how args should be structured beyond the schema's single example.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Build new timeline structure from source clips', and enumerates seven concrete operations. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like edit or organize.

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 purpose statement and action list imply when to use the tool—when constructing new timeline structures—but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned. The agent must infer the boundary against sibling tools rather than being told.

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