insert_beat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses insertion precedence and text/markdown handling, but omits error behavior for invalid IDs, mutation/file side effects, and return/result behavior.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences cover purpose, placement, and formatting with no filler. The markdown examples are compact and each detail supports correct invocation.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the non-obvious insertion and formatting rules. It is enough to invoke correctly, though error and return behavior remain uncovered.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds important semantics for the undocumented sceneId and afterBeatId parameters by explaining the insertion fallback order. The schema already documents file, audio, video, and ifUpdatedAt, so the remaining parameter gap is minor.

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 ('Add') and resource ('beat') and defines a beat as one moment of video beside audio, so an agent knows this creates a new beat rather than editing one. It does not explicitly name edit_beat or the scene/act insertion siblings to clarify routing, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 implies usage when adding a new beat and gives useful placement fallback via afterBeatId, sceneId, and script end. However, it never names edit_beat as the alternative for modifying beats or states when not to use this tool, leaving alternatives to inference.

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