auto_sync_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions discarding embedded audio and retaining metadata, but does not specify whether the sync creates new clips or modifies existing, nor what the output is.

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 with the main purpose. The parameter details are in a separate Args section, which is clean. Could be slightly shorter, but no fluff.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior well. However, it does not clarify where the synced clips end up (e.g., in the current bin or timeline), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The single parameter bin_path is thoroughly explained: optional, slash-separated path, defaults to current folder. This adds significant value beyond the input schema, which only has a title and type.

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 syncs video and audio clips by timecode, specifying it collects from a bin, retains video metadata, and discards embedded audio. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transcribe_audio or add_audio_track.

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 usage when timecode-based audio sync is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or conflict with other tools.

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