filter_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic attach action but does not say whether the effect is appended to an effect stack, replaces an existing effect, is immediately applied, or is undoable. For a mutating tool, this is a notable transparency 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 description is compact: one framing sentence followed by a focused Args block. Every line adds value, and the examples and sibling pointer are included without unnecessary padding.

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 four-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all input semantics and gives enough detail to invoke the tool correctly. It would be fully complete if it noted how adding a filter relates to filter_set_param or whether filters are appended or replace existing ones.

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 fully compensates by documenting all four parameters. It adds crucial semantics: clip_index is 0-based, filter_type examples include frei0r.opacity, and params must be 'key=value' strings with a concrete example. This goes well beyond the bare 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('video/audio effect') for a timeline clip, making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like filter_set_param or transition_add, but the phrasing and examples leave the primary purpose unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. The only sibling reference is 'Run filter_list_available for all options,' which helps enumerate filter names but does not explain when to choose filter_add over filter_set_param or filter_remove. The agent must infer the appropriate usage.

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