起動中プロジェクトへのオブジェクト追加(リアルタイム)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a key behavior: it fails if the frame range overlaps with existing objects. It also states that it acts on the currently editing scene without reopening. However, it omits details about success behavior, return values, or reversibility, leaving some gaps in operational expectations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states what it does, and the second adds a parameter note and a critical failure condition. Every word earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters (including nested objects), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not describe return values, success indicators, or how the nested object parameters (effects, draw_params, text_params) should be structured. The reference to add_objects helps, but the description alone is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 10 parameters. The description only mentions the type enum (video/image/audio/text/raw) and says parameters follow add_objects, but it does not explain layer, frame_start/end, effects, or nested objects. This does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action: adding an object to the currently editing scene of a running AviUtl2 instance without reopening. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling add_objects by referencing the same parameter format and highlighting the live aspect. This clearly identifies the tool's unique role.

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 description indicates the tool is for live additions to a running AviUtl2 project, contrasting with file-based add_objects. It notes that parameters match add_objects, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like live_update_object, so it lacks exclusions.

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