add_universal_counting_leader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation to the timeline but gives no information about permissions, whether the leader is inserted or overwritten, its default duration, or any side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The efficiency is appropriate for a simple two-parameter operation, though the result is under-specified rather than overly concise.

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 timeline-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: what the counting leader is, how it is placed on the track, whether it has a fixed duration, and what happens if the track is occupied.

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 100%, with both startTime and trackIndex fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Add) and a specific resource (universal counting leader) applied to the timeline. The resource name itself differentiates it from siblings like add_bars_and_tone or add_black_video, but it does not explicitly disambiguate its scope versus those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_bars_and_tone, add_black_video, or add_adjustment_layer. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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