fit_to_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core mutation, target type, resulting span, and sequencing, but does not address reversibility, selection/auth prerequisites, side effects on linked media, or behavior when multiple items match.

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 front-loaded with the operation and result, followed by target identification and timing. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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?

For a simple two-parameter timeline operation with no output schema, it covers purpose, target identification, and timing. However, because both parameters are optional and no annotations exist, it should clarify that at least one identifier is required and what happens if both are provided.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: ref as an identifier like "0.1", and name_contains as matching part of a name or effect name. It does not state precedence when both are supplied or that at least one identifier is 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 states a specific verb and resource: stretch/shrink a connected item so it starts at 0 and covers the whole edit. The examples (Adjustment Clip with a look, watermark title) make the operation concrete and distinguish it from generic trimming or moving.

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?

It gives clear sequencing guidance with 'Run after cuts' and implies when to use it based on the desired full-edit span. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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