pr_setClipSpeed

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operating context by surfacing ripple, reverse, and maintainPitch as behaviors rather than raw flags, but never says what a ripple edit does to downstream clips, whether the change is undoable, or whether audio is relinked.

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 front-loaded line with zero filler; the unit convention sits immediately next to the resource. It is telegraphic to the point of being clipped ("Premiere Pro: change clip speed (...)"), which trades a little readability for density.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and thin annotations, the description covers the core operation but omits what the call returns or how failures are reported. The ripple/reverse interactions and the clip-targeting object are the largest 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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most critical parameter: "percent, 200 = 2x" gives speed a unit that the schema leaves undocumented. reverse, maintainPitch, and ripple are named but their semantics (e.g. what ripple shifts) are not explained, and the nested clip selector is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "change clip speed" in Premiere Pro, and the parenthetical gives the unit convention (percent, 200 = 2x) so an agent knows what to pass. It also names the three modifiers (reverse, maintain pitch, ripple) that distinguish it from siblings like pr_setClipProperties or pr_trimClip, though it does not explicitly say so.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus pr_setClipProperties, pr_trimClip, or pr_moveClip, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the parameter list.

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