enable_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the clip is not deleted and that the operation toggles a muted/hidden state, but it omits permissions required, exact effect of enabled=false (audio mute vs timeline hide), and whether changes are reversible or affect export.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and the non-destructive constraint efficiently.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It lacks parameter semantics, permission context, and a clear statement of the resulting state, which an agent needs before invoking it safely.

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. It does not explain what 'ref' expects (clip ID, name, or reference) nor does it clarify that the 'enabled' boolean maps to enable/disable, leaving both parameters ambiguous.

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 states a specific action (enable or disable) on a specific resource (a clip) and explicitly distinguishes it from deletion. However, it doesn't differentiate from other clip-manipulation siblings like trim_clip or move_clip beyond the non-deletion note, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The phrase 'without deleting it' implies this is a non-destructive alternative to delete_clip, and '(mute/hide)' hints at the use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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