apply_transition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost no behavioral traits. It does not say whether applying over an existing transition replaces or errors, whether the action is undoable, whether track/clip must already be selected or active, what permissions/state are required, or what the call returns on success or 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?

A single tight sentence with the core action and its two placement cases front-loaded; no filler, no restatement of the name.

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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits how to obtain a valid transitionName, collision behavior with existing transitions, and any success/failure signaling. The schema covers the inputs well, but the agent has no behavioral picture of the operation.

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 per-parameter descriptions and two enums, so the schema already explains duration, position, trackType, trackIndex, clipIndex, and transitionName in detail. The description adds nothing on top, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb (apply) and resource (video/audio transition) plus the placement context ('between two adjacent clips or at a clip edge'), which is enough to distinguish it from remove_transition, set_default_transition, and apply_effect. It stops short of naming those siblings or pointing at get_video_transitions_list / get_audio_transitions_list as the way to obtain a valid transitionName.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when a cut needs a transition, and that transitionName must be a valid effect name. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. remove_transition / set_default_transition / apply_audio_crossfade, and no stated prerequisite that the name should come from the transitions list tools.

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