align_retained_bleed_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that apply=False is a preview path, that prior manual/declined decisions take precedence, and that placement overrides have a precondition. It does not say whether the change is reversible, what exactly gets modified, or what permissions/context are needed, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core operation and then the preview/precedence/precondition notes. No filler, though the terse phrasing borders on cryptic rather than self-explanatory.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with six undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a mutation in a dense editing domain, the description leaves too much unspecified about scope and side effects to be fully callable without trial and error.

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 0%, so the description must explain all six parameters, yet it only gestures at apply (preview via apply=False) and the timeline-window requirement tied to start_sec/end_sec/override_placement_lock. track_id and project_path are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 names the operation domain ('align supported complete direct phrases locally while keeping uncertain audio intact'), which is more than a restatement of the name, but 'supported complete direct phrases' is opaque jargon and nothing distinguishes this from the nearby sibling set_retained_bleed_alignment_mode_tool or align_brief_tool. An agent would have to guess which alignment tool to pick.

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 real usage rules: use apply=False to preview, saved manual/declined decisions win, and legacy placement overrides need an explicit timeline window. However, it never says when to choose this tool over the sibling alignment/mode tools, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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