learn_from_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that save=True stores pause settings, audio chain, and look as defaults, and describes what the comparison reports, but it does not clearly state whether the default compare path is read-only or what happens on failure.

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 reasonably concise and front-loads the core purpose before parameter defaults and save behavior. The line breaks and parenthetical examples are slightly messy, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 relatively complex comparison-and-learning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs, defaults, reported findings, and save behavior. However, it still leaves the exact return shape and edge-case behavior underspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains your_version as an exported .fcpxml/.fcpxmld with a default, claude_version as the last sent version, save as persistence, and look_name with an example preset name.

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: compare Claude's rough cut with the user's hand-finished version and learn their style. It is clearly distinct from generic style-management siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_style or update_style.

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 provides implied usage context through defaults for your_version and claude_version, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus related siblings like get_style or update_style. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing instructions.

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