Set Clip Properties Batch

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context: a preflight pass over every target property and read-back verification with no partial batch reported as verified. It does not clarify what happens on preflight failure (abort vs. skip), which is the one remaining behavior an agent would want.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first gives scope and the preflight behavior, the second gives the verification guarantee. The most decision-relevant facts come first with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers the two non-obvious behaviors (preflight, verified read-back) plus batch size. Minor gaps: no statement of which property families are settable in prose and no failure-mode description for the preflight.

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% and the schema itself is rich (per-field docs, min/max, the speed-unsupported warning, maxItems 16), so baseline 3 applies. The description's 'Motion/Opacity' phrasing actually under-describes the accepted set, since scale, position, and rotation are also valid.

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?

States a specific verb (Apply), the resource (Motion/Opacity values), and the batch scope (up to 16 clips), which cleanly separates it from the single-clip set_clip_properties and the narrower set_clip_scale/set_clip_opacity siblings.

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?

The 'up to 16 clips' bound and 'batch' framing imply when to prefer this over the singular setters, but no alternative is named and no precondition (e.g., clips must be selected or node IDs resolvable) is stated. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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