video_propose_mutations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and 'human apply only' is a genuinely valuable disclosure that the tool is non-mutating and gated behind human approval. Beyond that it says nothing about idempotency, expected input shape, limits, or failure behavior for what is effectively a write-planning 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 short sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized, though it is arguably too terse for the amount of undocumented behavior it needs to convey.

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 needn't be explained, but the input side is entirely opaque and no annotations exist. An agent cannot tell what a 'finding' looks like or what a 'typed mutation' is, so the definition is inadequate for correct 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 0% for the single 'findings' parameter, which is an array of free-form objects (additionalProperties: true). The description only echoes the schema by naming 'QC findings' and adds no detail on element structure, required keys, or accepted finding shapes, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'Map' plus resources 'QC findings' and 'typed proposed mutations' gives a discernible purpose that differs from apply/fix siblings. However, 'QC findings' is ambiguous given many QC siblings (video_quality_check, video_qc_vision, video_qc_narrative), and 'typed mutations' is unexplained jargon, so the agent cannot fully picture the output.

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 parenthetical '(human apply only)' implies this is a proposal-stage tool that does not itself apply changes, which is useful routing context. It names no alternative sibling and gives no explicit when/when-not conditions, leaving usage largely inferred.

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