resolve_modify_title_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavior burden. It only says 'Modify', implying mutation, but fails to mention side effects, requirements for an existing Text+ clip, behavior when indices are invalid or when no playhead clip exists, and whether any settings beyond the text are affected.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the two addressing modes are compactly expressed. Every clause earns its place.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotationsable and three parameters, yet the description omits prerequisites, error behavior, and constraints on what kind of 'Text+' clip can be modified. The output schema may define return values, but the description is too thin for safe invocation in real editing contexts.

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 usefully clarifies that clip_index and track_index are 1-based and that omitting them targets the playhead clip, adding meaning beyond the raw parameter names. However, it does not elaborate on new_text semantics or the default 0 values found in the 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 clear verb and resource: 'Modify Text+' with target selection via playhead or explicit track/clip indices. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like resolve_insert_title, though the term 'Text+' is domain-specific and the original text being replaced is only implied by the new_text parameter.

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 explains two addressing modes: playhead clip or explicit 1-based track/clip indices CEO. It does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as resolve_insert_title, nor does it state prerequisites like whether a Text+ clip must already exist.

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