play_pending_preview_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add real value: 'Does not mutate the project' and the explanation that Suggested renders the window as approving would ship it (same ripple, paced pad, fades, mute). It still says nothing about cost/latency, whether playback is async, or what dry_run/rerender actually change, which matters for a 7-param no-annotation 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then two supporting sentences with no padding. The second sentence is dense but each clause adds information about what Suggested actually represents.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but for a 7-parameter, zero-description-coverage, zero-annotation tool the description leaves too much undefined. An agent cannot tell what edit_id references, what dry_run vs rerender do, or how gap_sec/pad_sec affect the preview.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It effectively enumerates the mode values (Current/Suggested/A/B) and gestures at 'paced pad', but edit_id, dry_run, gap_sec, pad_sec, rerender, 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 states a specific action (auditioning playback) scoped to a pending remove or mute edit, and names the three comparison modes (Current vs Suggested vs A/B). It is clear, though the A/B mode overlaps the sibling play_ab_tool without any explicit differentiation, so it stops short of a clean sibling distinction.

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 implied by 'for a pending remove or mute' and it carves out one exclusion ('Splits have no Suggested side'), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to prefer this over the many sibling playback/preview tools (play_ab_tool, play_audio_tool, audition_context_tool, preview_inaudible_cut_tool), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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