fade_joins_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait (dry_run is a non-applying preview), but says nothing about permissions, whether the fade insertion is reversible, undo behavior, or side effects on surrounding clips for what is clearly 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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the dry_run caveat appended. Efficient, though its brevity contributes to the documentation gaps noted elsewhere rather than being purely a virtue.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. The existing output schema does relieve it of explaining return values, but an agent is left guessing how to target a track and size a fade.

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% and the description explains only dry_run, leaving fade_ms, speaker, track_id, and project_path completely undocumented. It adds meaning for one parameter but does not compensate for the four unexplained ones.

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 specific verb ('Add') and resource ('fades at edit joins on a track'), which is clear enough for an agent to know the operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like crossfade_joins_tool, set_clip_fade_tool, or apply_fade_recommendations_tool, leaving the fade-vs-crossfade boundary ambiguous.

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 only usage guidance is that dry_run previews without applying. There is no indication of when to prefer this over crossfade_joins_tool, set_clip_fade_tool, or recommend_fades_tool, nor any stated prerequisites or when not to use it.

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