filter_remove

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. 'Detach' hints that the effect is separated from the clip but does not state whether the effect is deleted, persists elsewhere, or whether the operation is undoable; this ambiguity is a real transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 definition is a one-line purpose plus a compact args table with no filler; every sentence contributes. It is appropriately sized for a simple three-integer tool.

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 low-complexity removal tool with an output schema, the summary and parameter docs are mostly sufficient for a correct call. However, the behavioral ambiguity around detach/delete and the lack of any usage context keep it from being fully complete; the agent is left to infer consequences.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the Args block documents all three parameters and adds critical semantics: clip_index and filter_index are explicitly 0-based, and filter_index is cross-referenced to filter_list. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 one-line summary 'Detach an effect from a clip' names a specific verb and resource, and the filter_index reference ties it to the filter family, distinguishing it from transition/marker removal tools. The resource is slightly generic ('effect' rather than 'filter'), but the function name and parameter context resolve the ambiguity.

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 explicit statement of when to prefer filter_remove over alternatives such as filter_add or filter_set_param. The only usage hint is '(see filter_list)' in the filter_index arg, which implies the agent should list filters first to resolve the index; this is implied rather than explicit.

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