add_transition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool adds a transition but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies the timeline in-place, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., adjusting clip durations), or returns any confirmation. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that front-loads the core purpose with an embedded example. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted text or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 4 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (clipId1, clipId2, transitionName, duration) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining adjacency requirements or valid transition names. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Adds a transition') and the target ('between two adjacent clips on the timeline'), with a helpful example ('e.g., cross dissolve'). It distinguishes from obvious non-siblings like 'add_text_overlay' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'add_transition_to_clip', which could be a similar tool.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., clips must exist, be adjacent), nor does it compare with 'add_transition_to_clip' or other editing tools in the sibling list.

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