resolve_edit_items

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that only 'allowlisted' properties are editable, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens with invalid edits, so the added value is limited.

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, concise and front-loaded with the verb. However, it could be structured to separate the two modes (properties vs. enable/name) for better readability.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description lacks important context such as how to identify items, error handling, return values, or the fact that timeline_id or timeline_name are optional. It is not complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameter meaning. While it hints at editing properties or enable/name, it does not map to the specific parameters like edits, timeline_id, or the nested ItemEdit fields. The complex structure is left undocumented.

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 edits 'allowlisted transform/crop/composite properties or enable/name timeline items', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_add_track or resolve_append_clips by focusing on editing existing items, but the term 'allowlisted' is somewhat ambiguous and not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare with sibling tools such as resolve_set_track_state or resolve_add_marker.

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