Media Edit Footage

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

With annotations covering safety flags, the description still adds meaningful behavior: prepare retains source intervals, frame clocks, grade/audio decisions and previews; assemble gates decoding, timeline, black spans and audio loudness; beat grids and approvals are only caller assertions, not verified semantics. It also discloses prerequisites (FFmpeg and Pillow must be installed) and that no provider is invoked, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the phase model, then the prepare behavior, then assemble requirements and caveats. Dense jargon such as 'measured prepare and approval workflow' costs a little clarity, but every sentence carries information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. Given two top-level parameters with 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the missing workflow context, prerequisites and the assertion-versus-verification boundary, leaving little an agent would need but cannot find.

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 schema already documents the request union, beats, grade, approvals and include_image. The description reinforces the prepare/assemble split and clarifies that beat grids are declared, not detected, but does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States specific verbs (prepare, assemble) and the resource (bounded local footage) with a two-phase workflow, and explains what each phase produces. It does not name sibling tools such as video_clip_export or image_edit, so an agent must infer differentiation, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 through the workflow itself (prepare first, then assemble with the exact manifest and approvals), which is a real sequencing constraint. However it never states when to choose this over alternatives like video_clip_export, nor any when-not condition, so guidance beyond the ordering is inferred rather than given.

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