Detect Scene Edits

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

It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: authenticated UXP bridge dependency, explicit confirmation requirement, and intentional withholding of CEP fallback due to panel-blocking risk. It does not describe failure behavior when no connection exists, but the schema and annotations already signal mutation and non-undoability.

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 concise sentences with no filler; the key qualifier 'Safe scene-edit facade' is front-loaded, and the implementation rationale follows immediately. Every sentence adds operational information.

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 fully covered schema and presence of an output schema, invocation details are mostly handled outside the description. However, the description leaves the core purpose implicit and offers no routing guidance against scene_edit_detection or detect_source_scene_changes, so an agent cannot confidently select this tool from context 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents mode, operation_id, and confirm_non_undoable; the description adds no parameter-specific detail. This is the appropriate baseline when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 calls the tool a 'Safe scene-edit facade' and mentions 'scene detection,' so the general purpose is inferable, but it never explicitly states the core action: detecting scene edits and materializing them as cuts, markers, or subclips. It also does not differentiate this tool from siblings like scene_edit_detection or detect_source_scene_changes.

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 gives an operating precondition—'uses the authenticated Premiere UXP bridge when connected and explicitly confirmed'—and explains why CEP fallback is withheld. However, it does not tell the agent when to prefer this over alternative scene-detection tools or what to do when the bridge is unavailable.

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