add_adjustment_layer

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the exact placement (at playhead, on specified track) and the use of QE DOM. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify the operation's scope.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no filler, and all information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, the method (QE DOM), and placement details. Minor gaps include lack of prerequisite mention (e.g., active sequence required), but overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 a single parameter (track_index) already described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or valid range. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Add', the resource 'adjustment layer', and the context 'to the active sequence via QE DOM'. It further specifies placement at the playhead position on a specified track, making it highly specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'add_track' or 'add_to_timeline'.

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 implies usage through its clear purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance on selection among siblings.

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