remove_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether removal is undoable, whether subsequent effectIndex values shift after removal, or whether the host requires an active sequence/clip selection — all meaningful for a destructive mutation on indexed data.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and has no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for an indexed mutation.

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?

With four required index parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify index semantics and post-removal behavior. It covers none of this, leaving the agent to guess how to correctly target and what to expect after removal.

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 each of the four required parameters (trackType, trackIndex, clipIndex, effectIndex) documented in the schema, including an enum for trackType. The description adds no additional meaning about index base (0- vs 1-based) or index stability, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('an effect from a clip'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as set_effect_enabled (disable) or get_clip_effects, leaving the agent to infer the difference between removing and merely disabling an effect.

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 statement of when to use this versus set_effect_enabled or get_clip_effects, and no preconditions (clip selected, host app state) are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and verb.

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