insert_title

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it warns that insertion is "best effort," says title names depend on Resolve version/templates, and explains that text setting may not be supported and to check "text_set" in the result. It does not cover side effects like track selection failure or opacity semantics, but the disclosed failure modes are genuinely useful.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by the most important caveats and an alternative. Each sentence contributes useful information.

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 3-optional-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the important environmental caveats (version-dependent templates, text-scripting fallback) and points to a better alternative for animated typography. The main omissions are opacity semantics and any explicit note about prerequisites or failure behavior beyond text_set, but an output schema exists and the description is otherwise sufficient.

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?

At 0% schema-description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema. It adds meaning for title_name (version/template dependent; Text+/Text common) and for text (scripting support varies; check text_set). However, opacity is never mentioned, including its scale or valid range, which is a real gap.

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 operation: "Insert a title at the playhead on the current video track, best effort." This is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as add_image or add_track, instead naming Remotion as an external alternative, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 provides concrete guidance on when not to use the tool: "For designed animated typography, Remotion produces a better result." It also sets expectations about title-name availability across versions and templates. It does not enumerate exclusions among the listed sibling tools, but the context is clear.

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