edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the incremental-append behavior when parent_version is set, the escape hatch when the script declares its own base line, and what is returned (version id, segment count, duration, warnings). It omits error behavior and whether existing versions are affected, which is why it is not 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the parent_version nuance and return summary. The parenthetical pointer to server instructions is brief and earns its place, though it does offload essential context elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields in depth, and it still names the main ones. Combined with the DSL pointer and append semantics, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though the dependency on external server instructions is a small completeness gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for parent_version (appended to the parent's script unless a base line exists), but video_id and dsl are left entirely to the schema, with dsl deferred to external server instructions rather than described here.

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: it creates a version from an edit script, which distinguishes it from siblings like render, check, and diff. However, the bare name 'edit' plus the fact that the distinguishing work is done by the DSL reference rather than explicit sibling differentiation keeps this just below a 5.

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?

It gives an implied usage rule for parent_version (append vs. base-line override) and points to server instructions for the DSL, which is useful. But it never states when to use this tool versus render/check/diff, nor any prerequisite ordering (e.g., whether a render or check is required afterward).

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