apply_motion_preset

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not contradicting them. It adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it replaces existing keyframes, and it warns that alpha animation requires exported-frame verification in the installed app. This is valuable disclosure that helps the agent understand side effects and verification needs, exceeding what annotations alone provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the key behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and structured to immediately convey what the tool does.

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 7 parameters, 4 required, and zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the name/new_name parameters (likely related to renaming presets), what strength does, what dry_run means, or what include_plan does. It also does not mention return values (no output schema). An agent would need to guess or probe to correctly invoke this tool with the right values for all parameters.

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 by explaining parameters. It mentions the preset types (zoom_in/out, etc.) but does not explain the meaning or usage of other parameters: name, new_name, clip_ids, strength, dry_run, include_plan. The description only partially covers the preset parameter's values, leaving the other six parameters undocumented. This is insufficient given the zero coverage.

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 creates clip-relative motion keyframes, lists the specific preset types (zoom_in/out, pan_left/right, slide_up/down, fade_in/out, pulse), and notes that existing keyframes are replaced. This is a specific verb+resource with no ambiguity about what it does, and it distinguishes itself from sibling list_motion_presets which is about listing, not applying.

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 gives clear context: it is for applying motion presets to clips, and it explicitly states that existing keyframes on the same properties are replaced. However, it does not mention any alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool, such as 'use list_motion_presets to see available presets' or 'avoid if you need additive keyframes'. Since it provides clear context but no exclusions, a 4 is appropriate.

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