Detect Repeated Takes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it is local-only and 'never changes Premiere', and it discloses the return shape (take groups, removal/keep ranges, apply routes) that implies a plan-then-apply workflow.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, then output shape, then the safety caveat. No filler, though the return-values sentence is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

For an 8-param tool with a nested word-timeline object, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call correctly: what it detects, that it is a non-mutating planner, and that an apply route is produced. Missing only explicit sibling routing, which is a minor gap given the distinct 'retake' concept.

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% with 8 well-documented parameters including ranges and defaults, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only gestures at two concepts (token similarity, time window) that map to similarity_threshold and max_gap_seconds without adding syntax or defaults. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (detect) and resource (repeated sentence takes/retakes) plus the mechanism (token similarity within a time window) and the planning action (removal of all but the kept take). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like detect_silence and detect_beats without opening any schema.

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 context ('in a word timeline', 'plan removal') and clarifies the tool is a dry-run planner ('Local-only; never changes Premiere'), which signals it feeds an apply step. However, it never names an alternative or states explicit when-not-to-use conditions against siblings such as plan_filler_word_removal or detect_silence.

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