replace_footage

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'replace' implying mutation, but does not disclose whether the replacement is destructive, whether it updates all composition references, or if the old file is deleted. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 with no fluff. However, it is under-specified; while front-loaded and direct, it could include essential details without adding much length.

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 no output schema, low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, side effects on compositions, or whether the new file must exist. The agent lacks context to invoke the tool safely.

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 only 33% (only newPath has a schema description). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning—it does not explain itemId or itemName. The agent is left to infer that itemId identifies the footage, but no confirmation is given.

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 uses a specific verb 'Replace' and resource 'footage item' with a new file, clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like import_footage (import new) and find_missing_footage (locate missing).

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 vs alternatives (e.g., import_footage). No mention of prerequisites, such as whether the footage item must already exist in the project or what happens to existing references.

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