update_pending_edit_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 disclose a genuinely useful trait: override_audio_checks=true preserves exact bounds, bypasses snapping/holds, and records the override. However, it omits whether the change is reversible, what happens to the edit afterward, permission requirements, and what snap defaults to when override is not set.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded and the behavioral nuance placed second. Both sentences earn their space, though the second is dense and could name the parameter more plainly.

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 mutation has no annotations and only partial parameter documentation, leaving gaps around the five unexplained params and the effect of the call. The presence of an output schema removes any need to describe return values, which keeps this from scoring lower.

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 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only override_audio_checks in meaningful detail; start, end, edit_id, snap, and project_path receive no added interpretation (e.g., units for start/end, ID format for edit_id, behavior of snap=true/false).

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 ('Adjust') and resource ('start/end bounds of a pending edit') and adds the pre-approval scoping constraint, which separates it from applied-edit tools like apply_edits or revert_applied_edit_tool. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent pending-edit siblings such as propose_edits, reject_edits_tool, or approve_edits_tool.

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?

'Before approval' implies the lifecycle stage at which this tool applies, giving implied usage context. But there is no explicit when/when-not, no named alternative for the 'instead use X' case, and no note on prerequisites such as the edit already existing or being pending.

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