cassette_review_footage

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', implying mutation, but does not mention idempotency, permission requirements, error states, or effects on other records. This is insufficient for an agent to infer safe usage.

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 description is a single concise sentence, front-loading key information. However, it is too brief and could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to understand the full context, such as return values, error handling, or side effects. It barely covers the basics.

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 description only mentions three optional parameters (selected, rating, note) but not the required clipId and fileId. The description adds marginal meaning but fails to explain critical required parameters.

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 clearly states the action (Update) and the resource (footage review metadata) with specific fields (selected, rating, note). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cassette_update_clip or cassette_update_track_metadata by focusing on footage review.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools like cassette_update_clip_notes might be more appropriate.

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