Set a project's intro/outro

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses override precedence (clip-level choices survive), timing semantics ('Applies on each clip's next render'), the effect of rerender:true (re-renders finished clips now), that a slot left out is untouched, and the return shape ({ rerendered }).

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core action and value semantics come first, then precedence, then effect timing and the sibling routing. The colon/semicolon chain makes it slightly run-on, but every clause carries information.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is mutated, what is left alone, when changes take effect, override precedence, the return value, and the alternative tools. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema by explaining that omitted slots are untouched and that introSec/outroSec are persisted with the project while clip-level choices override them. The enum-value meanings largely duplicate the schema text.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource scope ('Set one project's intro and/or outro'), immediately distinguishing project-level bumper config from the clip-level and default-level siblings. An agent can tell this apart from set_clip_bumpers and set_default_bumper 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?

Names both adjacent tools and their scopes: clip-specific choices win ('Clips with their own choice (set_clip_bumpers) keep it') and set_default_bumper 'changes future projects instead'. It gives clear context for selection, though it never states an explicit 'use this when' rule or exclusion beyond the scope contrast.

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