append_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the basic append behavior, omitting error conditions (e.g., what if itemName doesn't exist), permissions, undo behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe autonomous invocation.

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 sentence of 12 words with no unnecessary information. The key information (append to end of track) is front-loaded and immediately clear.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 4 parameters with low schema coverage, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what the tool returns, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., item must be in project), or behavior when sequenceName is omitted. The tool complexity is moderate, but the description provides minimal context.

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 only 25% (trackType has description). The description does not add meaning to itemName, trackIndex, or sequenceName beyond their names and types. For example, it doesn't clarify that itemName must match an existing project item or how trackIndex is zero-indexed. The description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'append' and the resource 'project item to track', with positional context 'after the last clip'. It distinguishes from siblings like insert_clip (which inserts at a specific position) and overwrite_clip (which replaces content).

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 for appending at the end of a track but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Given siblings like insert_clip and overwrite_clip, the agent must infer the differentiation without explicit help.

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