suggest_cuts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral default (bpm fallback based on suggested_bpm or track_id). It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, persistent, or requires authentication, so the disclosure is partial.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states purpose, one sentence states output, and the third covers parameter behavior. It contains no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

The description and output schema cover the core result shape, but the tool appears to depend on a prior pipeline step to have 'detected scene cuts'. It does not explicitly state what asset_id should reference or what earlier analysis step, if any, needs to have run first.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that bpm defaults to the VideoSonic suggested_bpm midpoint, or the track BPM when track_id is set. But it does not explain the required asset_id parameter, leaving some of the burden on the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource—snap detected scene cuts to a beat grid—and names concrete outputs (EDL-ish spans, intro/peak/outro acts). It is not a tautology and is clear enough to identify the tool's role. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling 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?

The word 'detected' implies the tool must be used after scene-cut detection has occurred, so there is an implicit usage context. The description does not say when to choose it over alternatives such as analyze_video_music or preview_mix, nor does it give prerequisites or exclusions.

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