filmora_command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered. The description usefully adds that outcome depends on current focus/selection and that verification is advised — real context beyond the annotations — but it does not say what gets altered, whether it is reversible, or what happens on an invalid command.

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 sentences, front-loaded, with no filler. It is arguably too terse for a destructive dispatcher, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A destructive tool with 0% parameter documentation, no enum, no output schema, and an open-ended command string. The description names the source of command names but leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently (unknown valid values, unknown effect, unspecified repeat behavior).

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%, so the description must compensate: it does explain that 'action' is a command name drawn from filmora_commands, which is the single most important thing to know. It says nothing about 'repeat' (default 1) or any format/validity constraints, so half the parameters remain 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?

It states a verb and a resource ('Dispatch a named command') and names the sibling tool that supplies valid command names (filmora_commands), which is genuinely useful. But the purpose is still generic — it does not say what class of action is being dispatched, and the 'action' string is opaque, so the agent cannot tell what this does relative to filmora_ui_action or filmora_key.

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?

'Focus/selection determines its effect; verify afterward' implies context and points at a follow-up verification step, which is meaningful guidance. It never says when to prefer this dispatcher over the many concrete siblings (filmora_click, filmora_key, filmora_edit), so the routing decision is left to inference.

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