clip_set_opacity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' clearly indicates a mutation, but the description does not mention side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or any prerequisites. The opacity range hint is parameter knowledge, not behavioral transparency.

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 that immediately states the operation and the value range. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema parameter coverage, this description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics for two of three parameters and gives no usage routing. The existence of an output schema lightens the need to document return values, but the behavioral and parameter gaps remain significant.

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%, and the description only explains the opacity parameter with its range. It does not clarify how track_id and clip_index identify the target clip, leaving two of three required parameters semantically under-documented beyond their names.

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 clearly states the specific verb and resource: 'Set opacity of a timeline clip'. The parenthetical range (0.0 transparent .. 1.0 opaque) adds useful specificity. It is distinct from sibling tools like clip_set_color and clip_set_speed by the property it targets, though it does not explicitly name any alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus other clip modification tools or timeline operations. The context of use is only implied by the tool's name and one-line description; no alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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