resolve_insert_title

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds non-obvious behavioral context by stating that size/position are validated and that partial failures can be reported after creation. It does not elaborate on rollback or side effects, but the core mutation and failure behavior 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?

Two short sentences with the core action first and the caveat second. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description gives the essential insertion and failure behavior. However, it does not state prerequisites such as an open timeline or a set playhead, nor clarify the coordinate system, so the tool is usable but not fully self-contained.

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%, and the description only gestures at 'size/position' without defining units, valid ranges, coordinate system, or how position_x/position_y relate to the playhead. It adds less meaning than the parameter names and defaults already convey.

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 the exact action: 'Insert Text+ at playhead.' The verb-resource pair is precise, and the playhead qualifier distinguishes it from title-modification tools like resolve_modify_title_text and marker tools like resolve_add_marker_at_playhead.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. It does not tell the agent to use this for new titles instead of resolve_modify_title_text, nor mention any prerequisite such as setting the playhead first via resolve_set_playhead.

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