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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is disclosed structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about whether the removal is undoable, what happens to effects on the same clip, or what errors occur if effectId is invalid. With annotations covering only the safe-readiness signal, this is a thin disclosure for a mutation.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is appropriate in size. The brevity borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is too thin to complete the picture. It does not say how to obtain a valid effectId, or what state the clip is left in after removal.

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 33%; only projectId is documented ("default: the open one"). The two required parameters, clipId and effectId, have no description in either the schema or the description, and this layer is where an agent most needs detail about how to identify an effect (e.g. whether effectId comes from list_effects).

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?

"Remove one effect from a clip." gives a specific verb (remove), resource (effect), and scope (one, attached to a clip), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling clear_effects. It stops short of naming the alternative outright, but an agent can still tell the tools apart from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent gets no signal on when to call remove_effect versus clear_effects, update_effect, move_effect, or remove_keyframe.

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