apply_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds that the tool will 'confirm it attached,' which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior, reversibility, or requirements beyond that, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the pointer to list_effects is clearly separated and purposeful.

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 tool is simple with two well-documented parameters. The description covers the core action, mentions confirmation behavior, and gives a prerequisite. It does not elaborate on return values or error conditions, but given the simplicity and no output schema, it is reasonably 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including an example for effect_name. The description's mention of 'by name' adds little beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') with a clear resource ('video or audio effect to a clip') and mechanism ('by name'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_effects or add_transition. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs users to list_effects for exact names, providing an alternative and prerequisite. It implies when to use this tool (applying a known effect) but does not explicitly contrast with related tools like add_transition, so it falls slightly short of full guidance.

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