filmora_clip_panel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds the prerequisite that a clip must be selected and points to ui_action/pixels for the actual mutations, but it does not clarify what state the panel opening changes or why an open-panel action is flagged destructive.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the core action leads and the workflow hint follows. The second sentence drifts slightly toward other tools' behavior, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 no-output-schema UI tool with one enum parameter, the description gives the action, prerequisite, and next-step workflow. It is still incomplete on the enum values the agent must choose between, which is the main decision this tool requires.

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 is a single enum parameter (panel) with 9 possible values and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description never mentions the panel argument or explains any of its options. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the one parameter the agent must supply.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ('Open a selected clip's editing panel') and scopes the target to a clip, which loosely separates it from the general filmora_open_panel sibling. However it never explicitly differentiates itself from that sibling or from filmora_edit, so the agent must infer which panel-opener applies.

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 second sentence implies the follow-up workflow (inspect/adjust controls via ui_action/pixels), giving implied usage. But there is no when-to-use guidance for the panel argument, no exclusions, and no explicit routing rule distinguishing this from filmora_open_panel.

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