check_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the read-only, non-mutating behavior ('Read only, so it is always safe to run') and lists the specific checks performed. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the output format or how the report is presented.

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 compact two-sentence structure, front-loaded with the main purpose. The list of checks is comprehensive yet concise, and the safety note is a single useful clause. No wasted words.

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?

With no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the safety profile, and the full checklist of issues. The only notable gap is the absence of any detail about the report's structure, which an agent might need to interpret results correctly. Overall, it is sufficient for a straightforward inspection tool.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (max_scale and max_audio_db) with defaults. The description reinforces these defaults (100 percent, unity) but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a clear action ('Inspect the whole sequence') and a specific object ('the edit'), then enumerates exact problem types (scaled clips, unanalysed stabilisers, audio spikes, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling editing tools that modify the timeline, making its purpose 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 implicitly frames the tool as a quality-check step for edits, and explicitly states it is 'always safe to run' due to being read-only. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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