Transition

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it mutates but is non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral detail about the cut timing ('cut scenes there') and clearing by time + duration/2, plus how iris/bars behave. However, it omits permissions, reversibility, and return behavior.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and timing semantics. It's information-rich rather than padded, though the parenthetical layering of the three types makes it slightly run-on.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 13% schema coverage, the description is thin: it explains timing but not most parameters, no prerequisites, no return/result behavior, and no relationship to comp_id/layer context. Substantial gaps remain for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate, yet it only clarifies what 'time' and 'duration/2' mean behaviorally. Parameters like bars, color, center, direction, and type enum are left entirely to the schema with no added meaning (e.g., bar count, color format, center coordinate space).

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?

States a specific verb ('add a shape transition') and resource (a transition covering the frame at a given time), and names the three concrete transition types (wipe, bars, iris). It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like edit_effect or add_shape_modifier, though it doesn't explicitly name an 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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as edit_effect or apply_preset, no prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing comp/layer), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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