apply_transition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context—default Cross Dissolve/Constant Power, 1 s, centered, and the handles limitation on length—but says nothing about whether an existing transition is replaced, required project/sequence state, or failure behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the core action and the defaults/limitation are front-loaded in a single readable line.

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 a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers defaults and the handle constraint but omits replacement behavior, preconditions (active sequence/track targeting), and any result indication.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by tying duration to available handles and clarifying that the transition is centered on the cut by default. It does not restate the position/alignment semantics that the schema already documents.

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 and resource ('Add a transition') plus the placement scope (clip start, end, or both) and built-in defaults. This separates it from apply_effect/get_transitions/remove_transition implicitly, though no sibling is named.

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 placement options and defaults imply normal usage (adding an edit-point transition), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as remove_transition for undoing or get_transitions for inspection.

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