generate_edl

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains dry_run returns the plan vs. writing a file, and notes the output is simpler than FCPXML. It could be improved by mentioning side effects (e.g., file writing) or prerequisites, but is still informative.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and distinguishing information. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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 6 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and dry_run behavior. However, it lacks details on the EDL format, ordering of clips, error handling, or what the plan object looks like. More completeness would help, especially since there is no output schema.

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 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that dry_run='true returns the plan, dry_run=false writes the file' and that the tool is simpler than FCPXML. However, it does not elaborate beyond the schema for other parameters.

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 tool generates a CM3600 EDL for video clips in a plan, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool generate_fcpxml by noting it is simpler (cuts only, no audio/effects), which helps differentiate.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool ('use for round-tripping a cut list') and compares it to FCPXML. It also explains the dry_run parameter behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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