add_adjustment_layer

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates that an adjustment layer is added, without explaining side effects, target context, failure conditions, or how the new layer interacts with existing tracks. This is insufficient for a mutating operation with no other metadata.

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 only one sentence, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' adds no concrete information and the remaining phrase merely repeats the tool name; every word is an opportunity to clarify behavior that was not used.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, no parameters, and no behavioral details, this one-line description is completely inadequate for an agent to predict the tool's behavior. The agent cannot know whether the operation requires an open sequence, where the adjustment layer appears, or what success/failure looks like.

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 tool has zero documented parameters, so the schema carries no parameter burden and the description is not required to explain parameter meanings. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4 even though the description adds no parameter-level detail.

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 identifies a clear action and object ('add adjustment layer'), but it does not specify scope such as where the layer is added (active sequence? playhead? specific track?) or what 'expanded operation' means. It is slightly more informative than a pure tautology, but remains vague about the actual operation context.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like add_to_timeline, add_tracks, or get_clip_adjustment_layer. It does not mention prerequisites such as an active sequence or selected target track, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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