ass_update_lines

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the caveats itself: it explains pad_ms arithmetic (start -= pad_ms, end += pad_ms), that negative values trim, that clamping is best-effort with a stated 10 ms worst case, that the operation is snapshot-backed, and what the return contains. It does not state permission/undo implications, but the disclosed side effects (silent timing adjustment) are substantial.

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 one-line purpose, then Args and Returns, which is appropriate for a 15-parameter tool. Prose is dense but every clause adds contract detail (padding math, clamp fallback); minor verbosity in the enum-style field listing.

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 15 parameters, no annotations, and a stated output schema, the description covers selection defaults, mutation semantics, side effects, and return shape, so an agent can call it correctly. The only hand-off is deferring several field params to the ass_update_line docstring.

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 0% for 15 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: selection semantics (None = all), doc_id default (current document), pad_ms direction/negative behavior, and clamp_to_avoid_overlap behavior are all explained. The remaining field params (text/style/actor/margins/etc.) are only defined by reference to ass_update_line, leaving their individual meaning outside this description.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource and scope: 'Change the same fields on every selected line.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the single-line sibling by the batch phrasing ('every selected line') and the required 'selection' parameter.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the batch scope plus the cross-reference 'as in :func:`ass_update_line`' hints at when to prefer this over the single-line tool, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative rule. A reader must infer that ass_update_line is the single-line counterpart.

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