edit_beat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses plain-text formatting and markdown retention, but it does not describe permission requirements, whether replacement is reversible, how omitted audio/video fields behave, or concurrency implications beyond the schema's ifUpdatedAt field.

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 front-loaded with the core action and stays compact. The formatting details about plain text and retained markdown are specific and earn their place, with no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required file/beatId relationship, what happens when only one media field is supplied, expected return behavior, or any failure modes.

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 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the otherwise undocumented audio and video parameters by saying they are the fields being replaced and are optional ('and/or'), while file and ifUpdatedAt are already documented in the schema. The required beatId parameter remains unexplained in both the description and schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the video and/or audio of a beat.' An agent can understand the core operation without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as insert_beat, but 'replace' implies editing an existing beat rather than inserting a new one.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like insert_beat, create_script, or read_script. The only implied usage is replacing media on an existing beat, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling routing are stated.

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