cut_to_edl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the derived source ranges, record positions relative to the first item, base timecode, and how FROM CLIP NAME is resolved. It omits side-effect details an agent would want – whether an existing file at output_path is overwritten, what happens if no matching publish exists, and whether any ShotGrid permissions are 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the mapping rules in compact form. The derivation clauses (source ranges, record positions, FROM CLIP NAME) are information-dense and slightly run-on, but each carries real meaning and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core generation logic and inputs. However, for a tool that writes a file to a caller-chosen path, it says nothing about failure modes, overwrite behavior, or environment assumptions, leaving gaps an agent would need to discover at runtime.

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?

The reported schema description coverage is 0%, and the description largely restates parameter roles indirectly rather than adding syntax (e.g. clip_publish_type is only characterized as the source of FROM CLIP NAME comments). It gives no format or validation guidance for cut_id or output_path beyond what the schema already states, so it adds some but not compensating value.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: 'Generate a CMX 3600 EDL from a ShotGrid Cut + CutItems'. It further scopes the intent ('drives Flame's native Conform'), which no sibling tool covers, so an agent can distinguish it from sg_resolve_source, tk_resolve_path, or openclip_create without opening a schema.

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 explains what the output is for ('drives Flame's native Conform') but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the Cut needing CutItems or published files existing. There is no explicit exclusion or sibling reference, leaving usage to inference.

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