filmora_ui_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: unsupported accessibility patterns raise an error, and value is always a string even for numeric ranges. It does not explain what state is destroyed by destructive actions, which is the notable remaining 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?

The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by action/error specifics. It is compact with little waste, though the sentence fragments ('set_value sets text; set_range...', 'select chooses...') read a bit disjointedly.

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 4-param UI action tool with no output schema, the description covers the crucial action semantics and error fallback, which is largely adequate. It still omits the meaning of the observation_id/element_id pairing and the destructive consequences flagged by annotations, so it is not fully complete.

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 schema alone documents nothing. The description compensates for the value parameter (string, incl. numeric ranges) and explains the semantics of set_value, set_range, and select actions, but observation_id and element_id (2 of 4 params) and most enum actions (click, invoke, focus, toggle, expand, collapse) remain 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 specific verb and resource ('Operate one freshly inspected control') and clarifies the semantics of several named actions (set_value, set_range, select), so an agent understands what the tool does. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like filmora_click or filmora_type_text, which also act on UI elements.

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 phrase 'freshly inspected control' implies the tool must be used after filmora_inspect, and the fallback guidance ('capture a screenshot and use pixels instead') routes the agent when accessibility patterns fail. However, there is no explicit comparison to sibling action tools (filmora_click, filmora_type_text), leaving usage context mostly implied.

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