clip_set_speed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does document the value semantics, including normal, fast, half-speed, and reverse behavior, but it does not mention bounds, clamping, persistence, or error handling for invalid speeds. This is adequate for a simple setter but not a complete behavioral profile.

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 description is a single compact sentence with an inline value legend. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler or redundant wording.

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 simple three-parameter setter, the description covers the critical domain knowledge: what speed values mean and how negative values behave. The main gaps are the lack of explicit explanation for track_id/clip_index and edge-case behavior, but the output schema exists and the overall operation is straightforward, so the definition is nearly 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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for the speed parameter with examples like 1.0=normal and negative=reverse, which the schema leaves opaque. However, track_id and clip_index are only conveyed by their parameter names and integer types, receiving no explicit explanation, despite 0% schema description coverage.

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 verb and resource: set the playback speed of a timeline clip. It also explains the speed scale with concrete examples, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like clip_reverse or clip_set_opacity, so it falls just short of full 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as clip_reverse or when speed changes should be applied. The usage context must be inferred from the name and general mutation semantics.

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