insert_generator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'insert at the playhead' but does not describe side effects (e.g., overwriting existing clips, insertion behavior, whether it adds to current track, or requires certain timeline state). The behavior is opaque.

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?

Very short at two sentences, but it lacks important information. While concise, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. The description could be restructured to front-load the purpose and add necessary usage details without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description still leaves many gaps: What happens if playhead is invalid? Is the generator inserted on a specific track? Are there naming restrictions? The description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool safely without additional knowledge.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It lists the possible values for 'kind': 'standard, fusion or ofx', which is helpful though it does not explain the difference. The required 'name' parameter has no description or guidance on naming conventions. The description provides partial compensation but is insufficient.

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 ('Insert') and the target resource ('generator'), and specifies the playhead location. It distinguishes from similar siblings like insert_title and insert_fusion_composition by focusing on generators. However, it does not explain what a generator is or how it differs from other insertable items.

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 (see sibling list with multiple insert operations). No prerequisites or conditions for use are mentioned. The description does not help an agent decide between insert_generator and other tools like insert_title.

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