add_adjustment_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it offers none: nothing about required project/sequence state, whether the track must already exist or be unlocked, whether the layer is placed at the playhead or at startTime, whether the operation is undoable, or what is returned. Only the 'video track' constraint is conveyed.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. Its brevity, however, edges into under-specification rather than genuine economy given the density of adjacent sibling tools.

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 and no output schema, the description should say at minimum what state is required and what the call returns or affects. Neither is present, leaving an agent unable to predict side effects or failure modes before invoking it.

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 100%, with every parameter (name, duration, startTime, trackIndex) documented including units in seconds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the small clarification that trackIndex refers to a video track; a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Add an adjustment layer') plus the target container ('to a video track'), so the basic action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from the cluster of sibling creation tools such as add_color_matte, add_black_video, add_bars_and_tone, or apply_effect, which an agent must choose between.

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 guidance on when to use an adjustment layer versus a color matte, an applied effect, or a text graphic, and no stated prerequisites such as an active sequence, an existing video track, or where on the timeline the layer lands. The agent must infer all of this from sibling names alone.

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