Validate Cmx3600 Edl

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds useful detail about what validations are performed, but it does not disclose potential side effects, whether the file is modified, or what constitutes a failed validation. Since readOnlyHint=false leaves mutation ambiguous, more explicit disclosure would strengthen this dimension.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists the validation criteria compactly. Every phrase contributes meaning with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers what is validated and when it should run, and an output schema exists so return-value details are unnecessary. The only minor gap is not distinguishing this tool from inspect_cmx3600_edl or compare_cmx3600_edls explicitly, but the validation-focused framing largely covers that.

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 already documents both parameters effectively. The description reinforces that the file is local and CMX 3600-specific, but it does not add new meaning about path or frame_rate beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') and identifies the exact resource ('local CMX 3600 EDL'), then enumerates concrete validation targets: event grammar, timecodes, durations, duplicate event IDs, record overlaps, and record gaps. This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_cmx3600_edl and compare_cmx3600_edls.

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 phrase 'before user-assisted Premiere interchange' gives clear context for when the tool should be used. It does not name alternative/sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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