resolve_build_rough_cut

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it reveals that a new timeline is created, ambiguous or existing names are rejected, planning mode is the default, and transcript-based inference is not performed. It does not detail what happens on success or when dry_run is false, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds a useful constraint or behavioral fact, and the most important action appears immediately.

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-parameter mutating tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly sufficient: it defines the required inputs, the uniqueness constraint, the ordering semantics, and the planning default. A little more about the actual execution result would improve completeness, but an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly from this description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'clip_names' maps to complete media clips in supplied order, 'name' maps to a new, non-existing timeline name, and 'Defaults to planning only' clarifies the dry_run parameter. It could be more explicit about each parameter, but it adds meaningful semantic context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assemble complete media clips in supplied order into a NEW timeline.' This clearly identifies the tool's core purpose and distinguishes it from siblings that append to an existing timeline or infer cuts from a transcript.

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 clear context: this is for ordered assembly into a new timeline, rejects ambiguous media and existing timeline names, and does not infer cuts from a transcript. It makes the when-not explicit, though it stops short of naming the alternative tool to use for transcript-based cuts.

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