assemble_edit

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses validation and optional beat snapping, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or error conditions. It provides basic behavioral info but lacks depth for a mutating tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with key actions, and contains no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and optional behavior.

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 tool takes a complex nested object and has no output schema. The description mentions returning a normalized plan but does not describe its structure, error handling, or prerequisites. More context about the expected plan format and return value would improve completeness.

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. It only says 'Validate an edit plan' without explaining the structure or required fields of the plan object, which is complex and nested. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'validate' and resource 'edit plan', and distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning normalization and optional beat snapping, which is not present in sibling tools like beat_grid or cut_music.

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 implies usage after probing media and before interchange/live, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings. The usage context is implied but not detailed.

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