resolve_append_to_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says "Add" and describes parameter semantics; it does not disclose side effects on the current timeline, whether the operation is destructive or reversible, what happens if no current timeline is open, or what errors/status the caller should expect. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence action statement followed by a concise Args block. There is no filler, and the parameter details are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, the parameter semantics are well covered. However, the description omits prerequisites (e.g., a loaded project/current timeline), what "append" means in terms of timeline placement, and how failures are surfaced. These omissions matter more because annotations are absent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description fully compensates. It explains clip_name, specifies track_index is 1-based, documents media_type numeric meaning and defaults, and adds a practical example (b-roll preserving interview audio). Every parameter gains meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific action and resources: "Add a clip from the media pool to the current timeline." This clearly identifies what the tool does and where it applies. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like resolve_insert_broll or resolve_replace_clip, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives one useful parameter-level guideline ("Use 1 for b-roll to preserve interview audio") and implies this is for appending media to a timeline. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings, when not to use it, or what state the timeline/project must be in.

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