Add Text Overlay

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the tool cannot perform its advertised action because of missing API support. This prevents an agent from attempting an unsupported operation and directs it to supported workflows. It does not contradict any annotation.

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: the unavailability and reason come first, followed by the two alternative routes. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted wording.

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 an unavailable tool with an output schema and annotations present, the description provides everything needed: why it cannot be used and exactly where to go instead. Nothing an agent needs in order to avoid or replace this tool is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 explicitly states that the tool is unavailable and explains why: Premiere does not expose a supported scripting API for creating caption clips from raw text. It also names the correct siblings for the two relevant use cases, so an agent can immediately tell this tool is not the right choice.

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?

It gives explicit routing: use add_title for on-screen titles from plain text, and import an .srt/.vtt with create_caption_track for captions. This is exactly the when-to-use information an agent needs to choose an alternative.

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