add_transition_to_clip

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool may return 'accepted_unverified' meaning the command was accepted but not verified, and instructs not to retry automatically. This is valuable context beyond what annotations would provide (though no annotations are given). It adds specificity about result interpretation and retry logic.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence is a clear declaration of purpose, and the second provides essential behavioral guidance. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the key behavioral nuance (accepted_unverified status) and clearly states what the tool does. It doesn't describe the return format beyond the status mention, but for a single-clip operation this is sufficient. The gap is not specifying prerequisites (e.g., clip must be on a track) but that may be implicit.

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 already has descriptions for all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal parameter-related meaning beyond the schema, but it does mention the valid values for position ('start' or 'end') implicitly. With full schema coverage, 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: adding a transition to the beginning or end of a single clip. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'add_transition' (which likely handles multiple clips or different context) by specifying 'to a single clip', and also distinguishes from 'add_to_timeline' and 'batch_add_transitions'.

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?

The description implies usage: the tool is for adding transitions to a single clip, and mentions checking status/verified in the result. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., batch_add_transitions for multiple clips). It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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