apply_filter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about mutation side effects, whether existing filters are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, permission requirements, or what happens if producer_id is invalid.

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 in the first sentence, followed immediately by filter values and parameter formats. There is no filler, and the dense format is appropriate for an enum-heavy parameter mapping.

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?

The description gives enough detail to choose a filter and construct its params, but it is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. Missing are the meaning of producer_id as the clip reference and the behavioral consequences of applying a filter.

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 0%, and the description compensates well for filter_name and the nested params object by listing allowed filters and their parameter shapes. However, it never explains project_name or producer_id, leaving the required clip identifier semantics undocumented.

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: apply a filter to a clip. It also enumerates the exact filter types, which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling timeline-editing tools like trim_clip, move_clip, and set_transition.

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 does not explain when to use apply_filter versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites such as whether the clip must already exist on the timeline. The allowed filter list implies usage but gives no routing guidance.

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