speaker_move_lane_span_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is 'one undo step' and declares TOOL_TIMEBASE: source, which are genuine behavioral facts. However, it omits permission requirements, validation behavior (e.g., invalid lane), and what happens to overlapping spans, so coverage is partial.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the core operation before the timebase note. No padding. The standalone TOOL_TIMEBASE line is slightly abrupt but information-dense and earns its place.

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 explained. For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the description is adequate on purpose but thin on behavior and parameter detail, leaving gaps an agent would need to fill.

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 maps conceptually to from_lane, to_lane, and the source span (source_start/source_end), and the 'TOOL_TIMEBASE: source' note clarifies the timebase of the span coordinates, which is real added meaning. It still leaves project_path unexplained and gives no format/units for the span values.

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+resource: 'Move a source span from one speaker-split lane to a sibling lane.' This clearly conveys the operation and the lane-based domain, distinguishing it from general move tools like move_clips_tool or move_segment_tool. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Siblings like speaker_split_tool, speaker_attribute_tool, and speaker_gate_track_tool exist, but the description offers no guidance on when this lane-span move is the right choice over those.

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