set_words_ignored_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses render-time muting, non-persistence to Clip.mute_regions, timebase=source, and two refusal conditions (expected_text mismatch and word_source_required). It lacks permission/auth details, but covers the key behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and states the core action. Subsequent sentences add necessary contrast and guard details. Some density from backticks and the bug reference (#633), but no sentences are wasted.

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?

With no annotations and 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core operation, sibling contrast, and the two optional parameters' guard behavior. The output schema handles return values. It leaves some parameter semantics to inference but is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 compensate. It thoroughly explains expected_text and source_id, and implies word_index semantics via source_id. However, ignored, track_id, start_word_index, end_word_index, and project_path lack direct description, leaving significant gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 action: set a word range as ignored (strike through and mute) or restore it, without a cut. Explicitly distinguishes from 'suppress' by noting the words stay in the combined transcript while audio is muted. The tool name and description together make the state change unambiguous.

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?

Explains when to pass expected_text (to refuse the toggle if words changed) and when source_id is required (multi-take tracks, with word_source_required refusal). Contrasts with 'suppress' and 'without a cut' to guide tool choice. It does not name the sibling tool set_word_suppressed_tool explicitly or state when to prefer it over other mute/cut alternatives.

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