optimize_cue_timing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'optimize' but doesn't explain what that entails—whether it modifies data, requires specific permissions, has side effects like overwriting cues, or what the output might be. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, with no wasted information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'optimize' does, potential side effects, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (cueListId, optimizationStrategy, projectId) with descriptions and an enum for strategy. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining the impact of different strategies or parameter interactions, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('optimize') and resource ('timing of cues in a cue list'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'optimize_scene' or 'reorder_cues', which might have overlapping timing-related functions, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'optimize_scene' or 'reorder_cues'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing cue list, and doesn't specify scenarios where this optimization is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.

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