review_cut

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important side effects: it writes orange 'Review:' markers and replaces pre-existing ones, and it writes a contact sheet to a named path, sourced from proxies when present. It stops short of saying whether the sequence must be active/open, whether the contact sheet file is overwritten, or how expensive the scan is.

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?

Two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the side effects (markers, contact sheet) deferred to the end. The middle clause is a long comma run of checks, but each item is substantive rather than filler.

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?

A nine-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool whose findings are never described — the agent does not know whether it receives prose, structured findings, or counts, nor what a 'passed' review looks like. Prerequisites (active sequence, proxy availability, time cost) are also unstated, which leaves a meaningful gap for a tool this complex.

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 description coverage is 89%, so the schema already explains markers, maxShot, checkBeats, videoTrack, contactSheet. The description mostly duplicates that (maxShot default 5 s) while adding only a little meaning, such as beat checking being conditional on music being on the timeline. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('look over a cut') plus an enumerated editorial checklist (shot count, pacing, flash frames, jump cuts, duplicate footage, beat alignment, target length) makes the scope unmistakable. That checklist also separates it from near-neighbours like qc_before_export (export readiness) and review_unused_media (media usage) without needing to name them.

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 phrase 'before showing it' implies the timing of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the alternatives an agent should consider (e.g. qc_before_export for export validation). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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