add_to_timeline_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it delivers: it reveals the internal loop mechanism (one ExtendScript pass), the speed advantage, per-clip result arrays, and the exact aggregate status semantics (success only when every clip placed; 'success'|'partial'|'failure' with counts). It also notes one bad clip does not sink the batch, which is important error-handling context.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, performance, equivalence, parameter context, and return semantics without redundant fluff. The structure is well-paced, with the core action and value proposition stated first.

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 complex batch operation with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate—and it does. It fully explains the lifecycle: what the tool does, why it's faster, how per-clip failures are handled, and what the aggregate result means. Complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by relating parameters to the use case (e.g., 'Each clip supports per-clip linkAudio and sourceInPoint/sourceOutPoint (Source-monitor in/out)' and clarifies overwrite semantics). It also ties linkAudio to preventing overwrite in rebuild workflows, which complements the schema's detailed comments.

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 the tool places many clips onto one sequence in a single round-trip, explicitly distinguishing it from the sibling add_to_timeline by noting it is the 'fast path' and 'equivalent to calling add_to_timeline (overwrite) once per clip'. The verb 'Places' plus the resource ('clips onto one sequence') is specific and unambiguous.

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 a concrete use case ('rebuilding a whole edit, e.g. a Descript/EDL stringout') and explicitly names the alternative (add_to_timeline), explaining when the batch version is preferable (~50x faster, single round-trip). It also hints at when per-clip options like linkAudio matter for overlay/rebuild workflows.

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