set_effect_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool, but only discloses that disabling equals bypass (a useful nuance over removal). It says nothing about permissions, reversibility, whether the effect's state persists after save, or behavior for video vs audio effects.

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 zero waste. The enable/disable and bypass clarification are packed efficiently without redundancy.

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 simple toggle whose parameters are fully documented in the schema and which has no output schema, the core action is adequately covered. It nonetheless omits prerequisites (where effectIndex comes from) and any side-effect or persistence behavior, leaving a mutation tool under-described in the absence of annotations.

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 all five parameters (including the enabled boolean and trackType enum) are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or indexing details beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 pair (enable/disable) and resource (an effect on a clip), and clarifies that disabling means bypass rather than removal, which distinguishes it from remove_effect. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from set_effect_property or mentions the need to discover effectIndex via get_clip_effects.

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 what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over siblings like remove_effect or set_effect_property, and no prerequisites such as obtaining effectIndex from get_clip_effects. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and parameters.

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