resolve_insert_broll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'defaults to dry-run', 'Rejects overlap, locked tracks and FPS mismatch', and 'Creates a recovery copy before an actual insertion'. While it does not mention the return format or success signaling, it covers the most critical behaviors for safe invocation.

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 two sentences, both dense with information. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence covers behavioral constraints and safety. There is no waste; every clause adds value.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain most parameters, what the function returns, or when to prefer this tool over siblings. An agent would struggle to correctly populate all arguments without additional knowledge.

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 only hints at 'record_frame' (via 'Absolute record frame') and 'dry_run' (via 'defaults to dry-run'), but leaves clip_name, duration_frames, track_index, media_id, and source_start_frame unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Insert video-only B-roll into an EMPTY interval on an existing video track.' It distinguishes from siblings like resolve_insert_title or resolve_replace_clip by emphasizing 'video-only' and 'EMPTY interval', leaving no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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 implies usage for empty intervals ('EMPTY interval') and video-only content, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool. It lacks an explicit 'when-to-use' vs 'when-not-to-use' guidance, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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