transition_add

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It clearly indicates a mutating 'create' operation, but it does not mention side effects, whether existing transitions are replaced, required timeline state, or failure 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 appropriately concise: one purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list. Each line adds needed information without unnecessary elaboration, though it is slightly plain in formatting.

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?

The core parameters and operation are covered well enough to attempt a call. However, the description omits valid transition type values, relationship to transition_set/transition_remove, and any preconditions about track layers or clip overlap.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining every parameter. It gives meaningful semantics for transition_type with examples, clarifies upper/lower track indices, states units for position and duration, and describes the params format.

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 action ('Create') and a clear resource ('a blend transition between two track layers') with examples. It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling transition_set.

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 transition_set, transition_remove, or transition_list. There is no mention of prerequisites like overlapping clips or valid track indices.

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