jianying_remove_media

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 clarifies the blast radius ('every clip that references the given media file') and that the operation is scoped to the timeline, but it omits whether the media file itself is untouched on disk, whether the removal is reversible/undoable, what happens when no clip matches, and whether an open-draft session is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping clause ('every clip that references the given media file') is exactly the information an agent needs and nothing is wasted.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves out side effects (source file preservation), the no-match/no-op case, and the error/auth behavior that an agent would need to call it reliably.

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% (both 'name' and 'filePath' are documented), so the schema already does the parameter explaining. The description adds only the linkage that filePath is matched against clips referencing it, which is marginal — the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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 gives a specific verb (remove) and a precisely scoped resource (every clip referencing the given media file, from the timeline), which is clearly distinct from the additive siblings like jianying_add_video. It does not name or contrast with any sibling explicitly, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that a draft must be open — only hinted at by the schema's 'Open draft name'), and no mention of alternatives such as removing individual clips or re-editing. The agent must infer the context of use entirely.

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