add_transition

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action: it mentions 'Uses QE DOM', hinting at low-level DOM manipulation, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites. With limited annotation value, the description carries the burden but fails to provide sufficient behavioral insight.

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, consisting of two short sentences. Every word is functional, with no wasted space. The core action is front-loaded, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 has no output schema and the annotations provide limited context, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns, prerequisites (e.g., existence of a cut point), error conditions, or typical usage context. For a mutation tool, more contextual completeness is needed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in the parameter descriptions. It does not explain relationships between parameters or constraints beyond 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 clearly states the tool adds a video transition between two clips at a cut point. It uses a specific verb and specifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_transition_to_clip' or 'batch_add_transitions', though the mention of 'at a cut point' provides implicit distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for different scenarios. The usage context is implied but not clarified.

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