resolve_create_timeline

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint false, no safety hints), so the description should compensate. It confirms a mutation but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., open project), or idempotency behavior. The term 'strictly located' hints at precise placement but lacks detail.

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 a single sentence with no waste, but it is overly brief. It could be expanded without losing conciseness to cover key parameters and usage context.

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 output schema exists and siblings are listed, the description is moderately complete for a create tool. However, it lacks detail on when to use versus alternatives and does not explain the return value, relying on the output schema.

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 must explain parameters. It only mentions 'clips with frame ranges', ignoring 'name', 'make_current', 'idempotency_key', and the full ClipSpec structure. The meaning of 'strictly located clips' is vague and does not clarify the many ClipSpec fields.

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 creates a timeline, with optional clip placement using frame ranges. It distinguishes from siblings like resolve_append_clips (which appends to existing) and resolve_duplicate_timeline (which duplicates), making the purpose specific and 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 use when creating a new timeline with or without clips, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings (e.g., resolve_append_clips for adding clips to existing timelines). No exclusions or context is provided.

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