Re-analyze project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that edited clips are preserved, that untouched AI picks are replaced but restorable via restore_clip 'for a while', the immediate return shape { kept, replaced }, and that picking is asynchronous. The only shortfall is that 'for a while' is vague about the actual restore window and no permission/lock requirements are noted.

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?

Three dense sentences, zero padding, front-loaded with the action and the prerequisite, then preservation semantics, then return/async behavior, then sibling routing. Every sentence 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the prerequisite, destructive/restorative side effects, the return contract, and the async follow-up. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and chain the next step.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested settings object is thoroughly self-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'optionally with new settings' and does not clarify any non-obvious behavior (e.g. whether partial settings merge with existing values) 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?

Specific verb ('pick clips again') plus resource ('existing transcript'), with the prerequisite stated inline ('needs one'). It explicitly separates itself from update_project and retry_project, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any 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?

Gives the when (re-pick from an existing transcript, optionally with new settings), the alternatives and their conditions ('To only save settings use update_project; to resume a failure use retry_project'), and the required follow-up ('follow with wait_for_project'). Nothing is left to inference.

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