title_manifest_adjust

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly indicates mutation ('changing'), but it omits critical behavioral aspects: whether the manifest is modified in place, whether validation occurs, whether a new manifest is written to output_path, and what side effects or prerequisites exist. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's runtime 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and scope efficiently, which is ideal for conciseness even though it lacks depth.

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?

This is a complex tool with five parameters, nested object schemas, no annotations, no output schema, and only 20% schema description coverage. The description provides only a summary of what fields can change, and omits how corrections are supplied, how manifests are referenced, and what the output represents. It is far from sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 20%, and the description does not compensate. It names high-level field types but never maps them to the required 'adjustments' array or explains the semantics of key parameters like box_delta versus box, manifest_path versus manifest, and output_path. An agent would struggle to construct a valid call from the description alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('manifest'), and enumerates the exact field categories affected: cue boxes, frame timing, text, role, or name. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like title_manifest_create and title_manifest_validate by naming the adjustment operation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention any workflow context such as being run after title_render_compare or title_manifest_from_reference. The phrase 'measured correction passes' hints at a comparison-driven workflow but does not state it, leaving the agent without actionable usage criteria.

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