add_transition_to_clip

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility and provides excellent coverage: it discloses a status/verified result field, explains the accepted_unverified state ('Premiere accepted the command but inspection could not prove the edit'), and explicitly warns not to retry automatically. This gives the agent actionable decision-making 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?

Two sentences; the first fronts the core action ('Adds a transition...') and the second delivers crucial result-handling advice. No filler or redundancy; each clause contributes operational 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by explaining the key edge case (accepted_unverified). Combined with 100% parameter schema coverage, this is largely complete, though it could mention failure modes like invalid transition names or prerequisites (e.g., active sequence).

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% with clear descriptions for clipId, duration, position, and transitionName. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high coverage. The position enum (start/end) is also repeated in the description, so no new semantic information is gained.

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 uses 'Adds a transition to the beginning or end of a single clip' with a specific verb and resource. The scope qualifier 'single clip' distinguishes it from sibling batch operations like batch_add_transitions. This is a clear, unambiguous statement of the tool's 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 phrase 'single clip' implies the tool's use case, and 'do not retry automatically' provides a clear operational directive. However, no alternative tools are mentioned; given the siblings add_transition and batch_add_transitions exist, explicit when/when-not guidance would strengthen this dimension.

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