copy_effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real constraint ('Only effects already used in this project can be copied') and the 'all' targeting behavior, which are not visible in the schema. The major omission is replace_existing, which defaults to true — meaning existing effects on the destination clips may be overwritten — and this destructive behavior is never mentioned.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and an illustrative example before moving to the special-case behaviors. No filler, though the example phrasing ('e.g. a colour grade or LUT') is the only slightly expendable element.

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 zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition covers scope and filtering but leaves the overwrite semantics of replace_existing unaddressed. An agent could call this correctly and still unintentionally destroy existing effects on the target clips.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It explains to_refs (including the "all" special value) and name_contains, and implicitly frames from_ref as the source clip, but replace_existing is completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Copy video/audio effects from one clip to others') with a concrete example (colour grade, LUT) that disambiguates it from generic operations. It implicitly separates itself from remove_effects and apply_look by scoping to effects already in the project, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides useful operating context: the magic value to_refs=["all"] targets the whole storyline, name_contains narrows the copy set, and effects must already exist in the project. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus apply_look/save_look or remove_effects, and no prerequisites or warnings about overwriting.

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