filmora_launch

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds real behavioral context: the launch is conditional/no-op when already running, and it deliberately leaves project state untouched. It does not say what happens if Filmora is not installed or what the call returns, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and condition, then the negative scope. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema utility tool, the description covers the action, the precondition, and the non-effects. Minor gaps remain: failure behavior when Filmora is absent and whether a prior filmora_status check is expected.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify, and it correctly refrains from inventing arguments.

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 and resource (launch Filmora) plus the scoping condition ('if it is not running'). The clause 'does not open or replace a project' actively distinguishes it from siblings like filmora_new_project and filmora_open_project_dialog.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition ('if it is not running') and rules out a class of alternative actions (opening/replacing a project). It does not name the sibling tools an agent should consider instead (e.g. filmora_status to check first), so it stops short of explicit routing.

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