set_item_fade_out

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false. The description adds the fact that length is in seconds, but it does not disclose that this overwrites the existing fade-out length, whether a fade-out already exists, or what the interaction with fade-in is. For a mutating tool, this is a notable behavioral gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args section is clearly formatted. It loses a point because the parameter documentation is incomplete, but the structure itself is efficient.

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 the tool's low complexity, the description is minimally viable: it states what the tool does and documents one parameter. However, the two index parameters are left unexplained, and there is no mention of side effects or return behavior. An agent could likely call it correctly, but some guessing remains.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents only the 'length' parameter and its unit (seconds). The required 'track_index' and 'item_index' parameters are completely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on how to identify the target item.

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: 'Set the fade-out length of a media item.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling set_item_fade_in. The main limitation is that it does not mention the track/item identification context, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for fade-out rather than fade-in, and it does not list any exclusions or related tools. Usage is only implied by the tool's name.

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