batch_rename_clips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states 'Rename' (mutative) and 'Supports sequential numbering,' but omits details like default scope (all clips on track) or safety considerations. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps compared to schemas.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core action and a key feature. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or fluff.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description omits high-level context about track targeting, selection filtering, and start number default. It does not summarize the full scope of operation, leaving agents to infer from schema alone.

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 clear descriptions for all 5 params. The description adds only 'Supports sequential numbering,' which aligns with the 'pattern' param already described in schema. No new semantic value beyond structured data.

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 'Rename multiple clips on the timeline using a pattern,' which specifies the action (rename), resource (clips on timeline), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rename_clip' (single clip) or 'rename_bin'.

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?

It implies use for batch renaming with patterns vs individual rename, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of 'multiple clips' and 'pattern' helps differentiate, but no direct comparison to siblings like 'rename_clip'.

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