filmora_key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine behavioral limitation (no raw scripts, no Windows key) but says nothing about delivery target, focus requirements, or why the operation is considered destructive, leaving a moderate gap.

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 the action and followed by format examples and the key limitation. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 simple input tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, format, and hard limitations, but omits the 'repeat' parameter's purpose and any indication of what the caller should expect after dispatch (focus, timing, state change). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 so for 'chord' by giving four concrete example values that clarify the expected format. However, the 'repeat' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters entirely 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?

States a specific verb (dispatch) and resource (one key/chord) with concrete examples ('ctrl+b, escape, tab, left'), so the agent immediately knows this is single-keystroke input rather than text entry or scripted command execution. It does not explicitly name siblings like filmora_type_text or filmora_command, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 description gives a negative constraint ('No raw script or Windows key support'), which tells the agent when this tool is NOT appropriate, but it never states positive when-to-use conditions or names the alternative tool for raw scripts or Windows keys. Usage is therefore implied rather than directed.

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