roll_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It fails to mention whether the operation modifies the timeline, requires a selection, is destructive, or how it interacts with adjacent clips. The description is completely opaque about the tool's effects.

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 short sentence, but it contains no substantive information. It is under-specified rather than concise; every word essentially repeats the tool name. A minimal description should still convey the operation's purpose, and this one does not.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter context, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool. It completely fails to describe what 'roll edit' does, how it behaves, or what the user should expect. This is inadequate for even a zero-parameter tool.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline score is 4 per the rubric. The schema already indicates no inputs, and the description does not need to describe parameters. The vague 'expanded operation' does not contribute meaningful parameter semantics, but this is not a gap given the absence of parameters.

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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: roll edit' is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It does not explain what a roll edit does (e.g., adjusting an edit point between two clips while preserving total duration), nor does it use a specific verb+resource structure. It also fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like slide_edit or slip_edit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection requirements, or scenarios where a roll edit is appropriate. Sibling tools with similar operations (e.g., slide_edit, slip_edit) are not referenced.

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