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

Annotations already declare the operation is a non-read-only but non-destructive, idempotent local mutation, so safety is covered. The description adds that an edit result is returned and defers its shape to the server instructions, which is useful. It does not say what happens if filter_id is unknown, whether the removal fails silently, or how the remaining effect stack is affected.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and a pointer for return values; no filler. The brevity is efficient, though it shades into under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, but for a mutation tool this leaves real gaps: no source for filter_id, no behavior on missing/invalid ids, and no note that the timeline handle changes after the edit (only visible in the schema). Not enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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 only 67% and filter_id has no description anywhere; the description contributes zero parameter meaning, notably not telling the agent where a filter_id comes from (filter.add / timeline.get). preview and timeline_id are already documented in the schema, so only the undocumented id remains, and it is unaddressed.

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?

"Take an effect off" names a verb and a resource, so the basic action is inferable, but it is close to a restatement of the title "Remove effect" and uses "effect" rather than the schema's "filter". Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like transition.remove, clip.remove or filter.set.

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 statement of when to use this versus filter.set (modify) or transition.remove, and no prerequisites such as the filter existing on the timeline. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the tool name.

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