screenstudio_editor_view

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the key nuance that although it drives the interface state, it 'Changes nothing in the project'. That scoping detail meaningfully complements the annotations rather than repeating them.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the operations, followed by a short scope clause. It is information-rich and mostly waste-free, though the enumeration makes it long.

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 an 8-parameter tool with 13% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main capabilities but leaves gaps: how projectPath works, whether operations combine (e.g., select plus panel), and what 'close' does. Adequate but incomplete for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is only 13%, so the description must carry the load. It maps panel options, timeline select categories and id-based selection, timelineMs units, sidebar/timeline toggles, and preview-only, which compensates reasonably. However it never mentions the 'close' parameter and does not clarify interactions between select, close, and panel.

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?

States a specific verb ('Drive') and resource ('the editor interface') and enumerates the concrete operations: opening panels, selecting timeline items, setting the timeline span, toggling sidebar/timeline, and preview-only. The sibling set is not named explicitly, but 'Changes nothing in the project' implicitly separates it from mutating siblings like editor_apply.

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 lists what the tool can do but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over siblings such as editor_state, editor_open, editor_list, or editor_apply. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions are stated, so an agent must infer the selection rationale.

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