Preview Edit Plan

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the single-use confirmation token, its 30-minute expiry, that it is bound to stable project/sequence/target identities, and that apply_edit_plan requires it. What is missing is failure/validation behavior (what happens on mismatch or after expiry) and the note that the token is the only stateful side effect, which would resolve the tension with readOnlyHint=false.

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, front-loaded with the action and scoping, then the token contract. The first sentence crams several nouns together and could be tightened, but there is no padding or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and the description supplies the workflow dependency plus token lifecycle that the schema cannot express. Only the failure/expiry handling and confirmation of no persistent project mutation are absent.

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% and the nested plan/operations schema documents each field (ripple, include_linked, track indices, ripple thresholds) thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: inspect sequence/project item/clip/track targets and preview a compound timeline edit. It also names the sibling it pairs with (apply_edit_plan), so an agent can distinguish the preview step from the apply step. The phrasing is dense but not tautological.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in a workflow: use it before previewing/applying a compound edit, and it is required by apply_edit_plan. It does not state a when-not condition or the failure path if a preview is skipped, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

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