return_from_after_effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is deleted, that the original is disabled by default and can be re-enabled to compare, how the returned clip is placed and named, and how hidden clips are handled for trimming. It does not describe error behavior or permission requirements, which prevents a top score.

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?

It is front-loaded with the main action and every clause carries useful information (placement, naming, disabling, non-destruction). The single long sentence is dense but not padded, though it could be split for easier scanning.

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 a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is substantially complete about what will change on the timeline and what will not be destroyed. It lacks only return-value or failure-mode detail to be fully self-contained.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (handoff, targetTrack, disableOriginal) are already documented, including their defaults. The description adds contextual meaning — placement above the original, same time and length, disabling the source — but does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 fits.

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 — bringing an After Effects render back to the Premiere timeline — and names the counterpart handoff (bridge.to_premiere / send_to_after_effects), so it is clearly distinguishable from the sibling that sends work the other direction.

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 explicitly covers both invocation cases: first return of a render, and a refresh when the render was already brought back once (re-render in AE and call again). It also notes that the original can be re-enabled to compare. There is no explicit 'when not to use' condition, which keeps this just short of a 5.

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