add_to_timeline_batch

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

The description claims behavior ('one ExtendScript pass', 'top-level success is true ONLY when...') that cannot be verified by the AI agent at runtime&DATA. These are unverifiable implementation details that could mislead planning, and the behavioral claims about partial failures are valuable but are presented without any annotation-backed guarantee. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but provides insufficient detail about actual runtime side effects, error behavior, or idempotency concerns.

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?

Despite a long wall-of-text format, every sentence adds a necessary fact about batch semantics, performance, or error handling. The information is front-loaded with the core action, and the detail about partial failures and return values is all essential. Highly efficient for the complexity.

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?

This description reads as a single run-on block with heavy inline parentheticals. It front-loads purpose but mixes performance claims, comparison to `add_to_timeline`, per-clip parameter details, and result semantics into one unwieldy paragraph without any structure (no bullets, no sections). It is far above the 2000-character threshold and hints at important edge cases (per-clip results) that are not clearly explained.

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 100% -- all parameters (`time`, `linkAudio`, etc.) already have descriptions in the JSON schema. The description adds context about per-clip `sourceInPoint/sourceOutPoint` and notes the clips array maps to overwrite behavior, but this is minimal added value over the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: to place many clips onto a sequence in a single batch operation stolen from `add_to_timeline` but faster. It distinguishes itself from `add_to_timeline` by explicitly naming it as the equivalent per-clip operation, and the context (

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('rebuilding a whole edit') and contrasts it with `add_to_timeline`, naming the alternative. The performance note ('~50x faster') further clarifies when the batch tool is preferable over sequential single-clip calls.

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