fusion_insert_title

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals important behavior (append at end, uses AppendToTimeline API, mediaType 'title'), but does not mention prerequisites like an open project/timeline, side effects, or error conditions. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a useful implementation detail. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present). The description explains the action and placement sufficiently, but misses explicit callouts for required setup (e.g., timeline must exist) and does not mention what the tool returns. Overall, adequate for the complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including examples ('Text+', 'Scroll'). The description adds no extra meaning, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Insert a Fusion title') and the target resource ('into the current timeline'), with a specific placement detail ('appended at the end'). This distinguishes it from similar tools like fusion_insert_generator and timeline_append_clips.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'current timeline' and the mediaType, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. Clear context but no exclusions makes this a 4.

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