set_clip_parameter_envelope

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

The description reveals that the tool can either plan or replace an envelope, which adds behavior context beyond the bare annotations readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. However, it does not detail side effects such as overwriting the existing envelope or the need for a confirmation token, though those are captured in the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence communicates the operation, resource, and key data characteristic without filler. Every word 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, a two-phase plan/execute flow, and no output schema, so the one-line description is thin by itself. The schema's parameter descriptions compensate for the dry-run/confirmation workflow, but the description does not orient the agent to the required sequence of observing stateVersion, dry-running, then executing with a token. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; 'exact step data' loosely maps to the points parameter but does not enrich the structured field descriptions.

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 identifies the verb ('plan or replace'), the resource ('Session clip parameter envelope'), and the scope ('one Session clip... exact step data'). It is distinguishable from the read-oriented sibling get_clip_parameter_envelope, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_clip_parameter_envelope or other planning tools. The phrase 'plan or replace' implies a two-phase dry-run/execute workflow, but the description does not state when to choose this tool, when not to, or how it relates to siblings.

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