set_scale

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses both the mutation ('Set') and a verification read ('read it back to confirm'), as well as an irreversible consequence (detail loss on export). It doesn't detail permission requirements, failure behaviors, or exact return format, but exceeds the bare minimum.

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 succinct, with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then provides a vital caution in the same compact length, all in two sentences. Every clause contributes actionable 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?

For a simple setter with two fully documented params, the description covers the main behavior, the scale semantics, and a critical edge-case warning. It does not explicitly define the return value of 'read it back', but the confirmation behavior is implied. Overall, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal param context by rephrasing '100 means native pixels' which loosely maps to the schema's '100 = original size'. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond the schema.

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 'Set' and resource 'a clip's Motion scale', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_clip_speed or trim_clip. It also adds 'read it back to confirm', indicating an additional return/verification behavior that further clarifies its purpose.

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 practical guidance: check source resolution first and warns against scaling above 100 on footage that matches the sequence frame, explaining irreversible detail loss. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, this context is sufficient for most usage decisions.

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