effect_glow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the glow effect but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, if it modifies the input file, performance implications, or side effects. The existence of input/output paths suggests non-destructive creation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a one-sentence elaboration, a clear args list with explanations, and a returns note. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no extraneous information.

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?

The description covers all parameters effectively and returns a dict with status and output_path. While it does not address edge cases or required permissions, the output schema exists to clarify returns. For a single-effect tool with moderate complexity, it is largely 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: intensity as 'Glow strength 0-1', radius as 'Blur radius in pixels', threshold as 'Brightness threshold 0-1', all with defaults. This goes beyond the schema which only provides types and defaults.

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 explicitly states 'Apply bloom/glow effect for highlights' and 'Creates a soft glow around bright areas of the video,' clearly defining the tool's specific purpose. This differentiates it from sibling effect tools like effect_chromatic_aberration, effect_noise, etc.

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 implies usage through the purpose statement (e.g., for highlights), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Context is implied but not elaborated.

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