invert_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only repeats the tool name. It fails to disclose what happens with no selection, whether the operation is undoable, or whether it requires an active project/sequence.

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 text is extremely short, but not economically concise—'Premiere Pro' and 'expanded operation' add no value over the name. It is understandable but wastes its only sentences on filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description still fails to clarify scope or edge behavior. It provides no information about return values, failure modes, or how selection inversion manifests, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description need not add parameter information that the empty schema already covers.

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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: invert selection' essentially restates the tool name without adding clarity. The phrase 'expanded operation' is vague filler, and the tool's verb-object meaning comes solely from its name, not the description.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like select_all_clips or link_selection. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which inverting a selection is appropriate.

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