mako

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does add useful action-level effects such as nest rebuilding with effects/transitions/markers kept, clear_effects resetting Motion, and quality_check marking gaps and offline media. However, it does not disclose permanence/undo behavior, mutation safety, or what happens if the panel has not loaded, which are important for actions that delete tracks and alter effects.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the dense enumeration is justified by 12 actions. The paragraph is long and punctuation-heavy, but most sentences earn their place by defining action/mode behavior. It could be more scannable, but it is not padded.

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 complex panel-bridge multiplexer, the description covers the required action, selection syntax, per-action behaviors, and the prerequisite that the panel has loaded. Because there is no output schema, return-value explanation is less critical. It still omits error behavior, undo semantics, and sequence targeting precedence, so it is not fully complete.

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 high at 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful action-specific mode semantics beyond the schema, especially for adjustment_layer, freeze_frame, fit_frame, quality_check, and the select variants. It does not explain sequenceId versus sequenceName precedence, keeping it from a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource: run a Mako/Basics Studio panel shortcut on the open sequence, on selected clips. The long action enumeration makes its scope clear. It does not differentiate from overlapping siblings such as add_adjustment_layer, freeze_frame, nest_clips, or unnest_sequence, so it stops 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?

It gives operational context: the shortcut runs on the open sequence and on clips selected first, and the Mako panel must have loaded once this session. It also explains select modes. It does not say when to use this instead of the many native sibling tools that perform similar edits, so usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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