detect_scene_edits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'optionally adds cuts or markers' implying modification, but does not disclose potential blocking behavior (e.g., the allowUnsafeSynchronous parameter warns about long blocking in schema, but description omits this), or any safety/reversibility concerns. This is a significant gap for a tool that may modify the timeline.

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 that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, earning a perfect score for 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 the tool operates on 'selected clips' and has parameters with safety implications (allowUnsafeSynchronous), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how selection is determined, what the action parameter does in detail, or warn about potential long-running operations. Without an output schema or annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context, but it remains minimal.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it references 'optionally adds cuts or markers' which aligns with the action parameter, but does not enrich understanding of sensitivity or other parameters. Since the schema already documents all parameters, no additional compensation is needed, but no extra value is added either.

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 function: 'Detects scene changes in selected clips and optionally adds cuts or markers.' It uses a specific verb (detects) and resource (scene changes in selected clips), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_silence. The mention of optional cuts/markers further clarifies its purpose.

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 when scene change detection is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like detect_silence or scene_edit_detection, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use context.

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