set_stabilizer_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It highlights a critical behavior: 'Premiere will NOT re-analyse from a script' and explains that the response indicates whether the Analyze button still needs to be clicked. This is valuable operational context beyond the schema.

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 action and mode options, followed by a crucial behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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's complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main modes and the behavioral nuance about analysis. It does not mention max_scale or the specific return format beyond the Analyze guidance, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly for the core use case.

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 description adds substantial meaning to the 'mode' parameter by explaining the real-world intent of each enum value, which the schema only lists as strings. The node_id and max_scale parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description's focus on mode fills the main semantic gap. However, it does not mention max_scale, leaving that parameter's purpose solely to 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 explicitly states the tool 'Set Warp Stabilizer' and distinguishes the two modes ('no_motion' vs 'smooth_motion') with clear definitions. This makes the purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_stabilizer_status, which only retrieves status.

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 provides clear context for when to use each mode: 'no_motion' for static-camera edits and 'smooth_motion' for maintaining camera movement. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use get_stabilizer_status instead, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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