bounce_session_to_arrangement

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

The description explains the step-by-step behavior: clips are dropped onto arrangement starting at the running time cursor and advancing by bar_length. It notes the tool is BETA. However, it does not disclose whether existing arrangement clips are overwritten or if the tool is destructive, and no annotations provide additional context.

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, well-structured with a clear first-line purpose, followed by a brief behavioral explanation and bullet-pointed parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the core functionality, parameters, and a requirement. It could be more complete by explaining the result (arrangement timeline updated) and potential side effects, but it is sufficient for a tool of moderate complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: scene_order as a list of scene indices with an example, and bar_length with a default value. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema property names and types.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: "Render a sequence of scenes onto the arrangement timeline." It explains the process for each scene in order and distinguishes itself from siblings like fire_scene or add_clip_to_arrangement by focusing on a multi-scene bounce to arrangement.

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 positions the tool as "the closest thing to a one-call 'session sketch → arrangement' flow" and mentions a Live version requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives for single-clip placement, though the sibling list implies alternatives.

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