pr_applyEffect

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

Annotations already declare that this mutates state (readOnlyHint=false) while being non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation can optionally set effect parameters at apply time and that plugins are supported, but it says nothing about whether re-applying stacks effects, whether prior parameters are preserved, or whether this needs an open sequence.

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 sentence with the verb, resource, and targeting front-loaded, followed by the optional parameter-setting clause. The nested parentheticals are dense but each clause contributes; nothing is padded.

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 mutating tool with a nested clips array and no output schema, the description covers the core inputs but omits the 'sequence' parameter's role and what the call returns or how failures are reported. Adequate for a basic call, incomplete for confident use in edge cases.

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 only 50%, yet the description fills the most important gap: it defines 'effect' as an exact name from pr_findEffects and describes 'properties' as a {paramName: value} map, which the schema leaves as an untyped free-form object. The 'sequence' parameter and clip targeting details are not explained in the description, keeping it below 5.

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?

The description names a specific verb (apply) and resource (video or audio effect) and scopes it to clips, with the extra detail that effects may be built-in or plugins. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling pr_setEffectProperties, which is the nearest overlapping operation, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear routing dependency: the effect must be the exact name obtained from pr_findEffects, which tells the agent to run discovery first. It offers no explicit when-not guidance or contrast with pr_setEffectProperties or pr_applyTransition, so the usage context is clear but not exhaustive.

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