set_best_cut

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description usefully adds that this 'only marks a range' rather than creating media, that the result is user-visible in the Storyboard tab, and how the range is attributed relative to Gemini's. It does not cover permissions or whether a prior agent range is overwritten, 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?

Four compact sentences, with the core action and the Gemini caveat front-loaded before the restatement and the cut_take handoff. Every sentence carries information, though the visibility note and the 'only marks a range' reminder could be merged without loss.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: what it changes, who sees it, how it relates to Gemini's suggestion, and the next tool to call. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to know what it does not do.

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 end, why, said, clean, start, session and take; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only indirect meaning (the transcript/frames framing maps loosely to said and clean) and introduces a 'by=agent' attribution that has no corresponding schema field, which mildly muddies rather than clarifies parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (Set) plus resource (best cut of a storyboard take) with an explicit precondition (after you checked it). It cleanly separates this from the sibling cut_take by noting it 'only marks a range', so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative source (Gemini's best_cut stays under 'gemini'; this writes by=agent), explains the verification step (compare with transcript and frames), and routes the follow-up action explicitly: 'To make the clip, call cut_take with that range.' This is when-to-use plus what-to-do-next with no inference required.

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