filmora_edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that a selection must exist and that results should be verified, but it does not disclose what specific actions destroy (delete, ripple_delete, cut) or how undo/redo interact with the timeline.

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?

A single compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler, keeping the core action and prerequisite first. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, which is a smaller sin than verbosity.

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 17-action destructive mutation tool with no output schema, no per-action documentation, and no explanation of repeat demands far more description than one line. An agent cannot tell which actions need a selection, which are reversible, or what the return looks like.

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 coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameters at all. The 17-value action enum is largely self-describing, but semantics such as ripple_delete vs close_gap vs cut, and the meaning of the repeat parameter, are left entirely unexplained.

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 clear verb (edit) and resource (selected timeline clips), which tells the agent what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as filmora_command, filmora_commands, or filmora_ui_action, which could plausibly also mutate clips.

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?

Provides a real workflow constraint: inspect selection and playhead first, then verify the result, effectively giving a precondition and postcondition. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it versus filmora_command/filmora_ui_action.

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