effect_crossfade_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states the state-dependent requirement (selecting the junction point) and the scope (same track, adjacent clips), but it does not disclose reversibility, failure conditions, or what happens to the clips beyond the crossfade.

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, no filler, and the most essential information is front-loaded: the action in the first sentence and the prerequisite in the second. Every word contributes.

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 parameterless, output-schema-less effect command, the description provides the action, object constraints, and required selection state. It lacks only a brief note on selection validity or failure behavior, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

There are zero input-schema parameters, and the description compensates by documenting the real implicit input: the selected junction point between two adjacent clips. This is exactly the semantically important state an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 specifies the exact verb ('Crossfade'), the resource ('clips'), and the constraints ('adjacent clips on the same track'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like effect_crossfade_tracks or individual fade effects.

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?

It communicates when the tool is applicable: only for two adjacent clips on the same track, and provides a concrete precondition ('Select the junction point between two clips first'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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