snap_to_beats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'align cuts', implying modification, but does not specify whether the original file is changed or if a new file is created (the output_path parameter suggests an output). No mention of destructive nature, reversibility, or authorization needs. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

A single sentence that clearly conveys the core action and context. It is concise without being under-specified, though it could include more behavioral context without losing conciseness.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain what happens on completion (e.g., file saved, success message). It lacks prerequisites (beat markers must exist) and does not specify if the input is modified. This is inadequate for a complete understanding.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds nothing beyond the schema (e.g., 'align cuts to nearest beat markers'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Align cuts to nearest beat markers for music-synced edits' uses a specific verb ('align cuts') and resource ('beat markers'), and provides context ('music-synced edits'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'import_beat_markers' which deals with importing, not snapping.

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 implies the tool is for music-synced edits, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. It also does not mention prerequisites like having beat markers already present. Hence, guidance is only implied.

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