set_clip_transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only lists property categories. It does not explain whether this is a partial or full update, permission requirements, side effects, reversibility, or interaction with keyframes, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool with 11 parameters.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool name and immediately communicates the operation and affected properties.

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's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is too thin. It omits usage context, update semantics, and behavioral details that an agent would need to invoke it correctly beyond the schema definitions.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter with units and semantics (e.g., scale percentage, opacity 0-100, position in pixels). The description adds only a high-level grouping of those properties and does not provide additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('motion/transform properties of a video clip'), and it enumerates the relevant property categories. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_clip_transform or set_clip_position.

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 states no conditions for when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_clip_transform or set_clip_position. It merely restates the operation with no contextual guidance or exclusions.

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