replaceFootage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that an existing item is replaced with a new file from disk, but it does not disclose consequences such as what happens to compositions using the old footage, whether replacement is reversible, or how target resolution works when both footageId and footageName are optional.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. The parenthetical use-case note is compact and relevant rather than wasteful.

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 schema fully documents the parameters and the description states the core replacement operation, which is adequate for a simple mutation tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally explain target selection between footageId and footageName and the effects of replacing assets in a project.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only high-level context about replacing existing footage with a file from disk and does not add syntax, format, or selection details beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: it replaces an existing footage item or placeholder with a new file from disk. This distinguishes it from importFootage by emphasizing replacement of an existing project item, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool.

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 parenthetical 'essential for template customization' provides an implied use case, and 'replace an existing footage item or placeholder' indicates the context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus importFootage or how to choose between footageId and footageName.

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