Inspect Edit Readiness

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by emphasizing 'one read-only bridge request' and confirming the scope is structural diagnostics only, which prevents misuse for creative or delivery decisions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and the specific diagnostic checks; the second sentence sets an important limitation. Every clause contributes to selection or invocation clarity.

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 three optional parameters are fully described in the schema, an output schema is present, and annotations already communicate read-only/idempotent safety, this description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers scope, limitations, and the active-sequence target without needing to explain return values.

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 schema fully documents all three optional parameters. The description adds slight contextual mapping by mentioning 'primary-track gaps' and 'excessive Motion scale,' which relate to primary_video_track and maximum_scale_percent, but it does not add meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. A 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Audit the active sequence'), then enumerates the exact diagnostic checks: empty timelines, primary-track gaps, disabled clips, muted tracks, and excessive Motion scale. It also distinguishes itself from quality-review tools by declaring 'Structural diagnostics only' and listing what it cannot judge. This makes the tool's scope unmistakable even among the many sibling inspect/analyze tools.

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 clearly states when this tool is appropriate (structural readiness audit) and explicitly excludes story, framing, sound, and final delivery judgments. It does not name a specific sibling tool as the alternative for those qualitative concerns, but the boundary is concrete enough that an agent can infer when not to use it.

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