cut_to_edl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains source range and record position formulas and how FROM CLIP NAME is derived, but does not state potential side effects, permissions, error behavior, or return format. The computational detail adds transparency but leaves safety and lifecycle aspects ambiguous.

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 dense sentence with useful semicolon-separated details. It wastes no words, though the density makes it slightly harder to parse than a more structured two-sentence layout.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key algorithmic behavior (ranges, record positions, naming) and the Flame-conform context. It does not explain what the tool returns, but that is not required since an output schema exists. It lacks only explicit usage boundaries.

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 description adds meaning for clip_publish_type by explaining it drives FROM CLIP NAME, and implies cut_id and output_path through the EDL generation context. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate more thoroughly; it under-specifies output_path and cut_id and does not mention they are required.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate a CMX 3600 EDL from a ShotGrid Cut + CutItems' and notes it drives Flame's native Conform. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like sg_find or tk_publish.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is relevant (generating EDLs for Flame conform from ShotGrid cuts) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It implies usage for editing workflows without stating when not to use it.

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