add_transition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool confirms the transition appeared on the track (verification behavior) and notes the handle requirement and possible refusal/shortening, which are important behavioral traits beyond a simple mutation.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and verification, the second adds an important caveat. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, a critical prerequisite (handles), and the confirmation behavior. It does not detail return values, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the presence of complete schema descriptions.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (at, node_id, transition_name), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 action: 'Add a video transition at a clip's head or tail' and includes a verification step. It is specific about the resource (clip) and position (head/tail), distinguishing it from siblings like list_transitions (which lists available transitions) and apply_effect (which applies effects).

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 the tool is for adding transitions and provides a key prerequisite: 'a transition needs media beyond the cut to draw from; without handles Premiere may refuse or shorten it.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or provide 'when not to' guidance.

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