copy_effects_between_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: copy effects between clips,' which adds little beyond the tool name. It does not reveal whether the copy is a full duplication, whether target effects are overwritten, or whether any permissions or sequence context are required.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation efficiently, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description should provide essential context about how the operation works. It leaves ambiguity around what 'between clips' means (e.g., source/target selection), whether all effects are copied, and whether this replaces or appends effects on the destination clip. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool reliably without further assumptions.

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 parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. Per guidelines, this scenario gets a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details, and it does not introduce any conflicting parameter information.

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 clearly states the operation: 'copy effects between clips.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_effect (which adds new effects) and copy_effect_values (which copies specific property values). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these related operations, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copy_effect_values, apply_effect, or batch_apply_effect. The description does not state prerequisites (e.g., selected source and target clips) or whether it replaces existing effects on the target clip.

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