Detect Scene Edits

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

The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the transport dependency (authenticated UXP bridge), that confirmation is required, and the rationale for withholding the CEP fallback. The non-undoable mutation is only conveyed via the schema, not the description, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core identity ('safe scene-edit facade') is front-loaded. Slightly wasteful use of space on transport justification rather than capability.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the transport gating is covered. But for a 3-param mutating tool the description omits the precondition that a native sequence selection must exist and doesn't clarify how the three modes differ in effect.

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% and each parameter (mode, operation_id, confirm_non_undoable) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail about mode choices or the idempotency key, so 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?

It identifies the tool as a 'scene-edit facade' but never states the actual operation — detecting edits in the sequence and materializing them as cuts, markers, or subclips (that only surfaces in the mode enum). 'Facade' is architecture jargon rather than a verb+resource statement, so an agent learns little about what invoking it accomplishes.

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 gives useful conditional context (used when the UXP bridge is connected and confirmed; CEP fallback intentionally withheld), which implies usage constraints. However it never names or distinguishes the closely related siblings detect_source_scene_changes or scene_edit_detection, and no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is offered.

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