replace_clip_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states 'expanded operation,' which is meaningless. It does not indicate whether the operation is destructive, requires user interaction, or affects the current sequence/project. The replacement behavior is only implied by the name, not elaborated.

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 one short sentence, but its brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. The phrase 'expanded operation' is vague filler that adds no information, and the core statement essentially just restates the tool name without useful elaboration.

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?

The description is clearly inadequate: it doesn't say which clip is affected, how a target is selected, what 'expanded operation' entails, or what the outcome is. Given no output schema and no annotations, an agent has almost no information needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero formal parameters, and the schema only allows additionalProperties. Per the rubric, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation. It adds no parameter meaning but none is required.

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 restates the tool name 'replace clip media' and appends the unhelpful phrase 'expanded operation,' which does not clarify what the tool actually does or how it differs from similar operations. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like replace_clip or relink_media.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent to guess how it is meant to be chosen over replace_clip, refresh_media, or relink_media.

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