add_transition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a mutating operation, how it affects existing transitions or clip edges, whether it is idempotent, or what side effects may occur.

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 words. Every part contributes to stating the core operation, which is ideal for a tool with only three parameters.

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 mutating tool with no annotationsantations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent. It omits parameter semantics, side effects, and return behavior, leaving critical operational context to inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It partially maps 'fade in/out' to the kind parameter and 'clip edge' to clip_id, but it says nothing about duration, its units, defaults, or how kind and duration interact.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a fade in/out to a clip edge.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like add_clip, trim, or set_volume, which do not describe transition/fade operations.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only implies a use case for adding fades; it does not help an agent decide between this and related editing tools like set_volume or trim.

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