set_current_version

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects, whether the change is reversible, if project saving is required, or error conditions. This mutation tool provides minimal behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly identifies the action and provides an example. It is concise but perhaps too terse, omitting necessary details that could be added without much bloat.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error cases, or how to determine the correct version_index. It also provides no context relative to sibling tools, leaving the agent uncertain about when to invoke this tool.

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 explain parameters. It hints at clip_name ('by name') and version_type ('color grades') but does not clarify version_index (e.g., zero-based vs one-based) or acceptable values. The default version_type is mentioned in the schema but not in the description, leaving the user to infer semantics.

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 action: 'Set the current version for a clip by name', with a concrete example ('switch between color grades'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_clip_property or add_color_node, which deal with other aspects.

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 description implies the use case (switching between color grades) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, such as whether the clip must already have multiple versions. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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