apply_audio_effect_to_all_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it usefully discloses that the call applies to all audio clips, executes in one ExtendScript call, and returns per-clip results. However, it does not say whether the effect is added or replaces existing effects, whether it is undoable, or how partial failures are reported.

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 three short sentences that front-load the purpose with 'Bulk:' and avoid filler. Every phrase contributes: scope, behavior, return shape, and rationale for using the tool.

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 three-parameter batch tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent the key operational facts: all clips are affected, results are per clip, and the main use case is bulk calibration or effects chains. The schema covers parameter semantics, though a note on add-vs-replace behavior would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, including examples for effectName, normalization for parameters, and the active-sequence requirement for sequenceId. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opens with 'Bulk:' and states it applies a single audio effect to ALL audio clips of a sequence in one ExtendScript call, clearly distinguishing it from single-clip apply_audio_effect or other batch tools. The verb and scope are specific and unambiguous.

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?

It says to use this when 'calibrating or applying same chain' and emphasizes saving N MCP roundtrips, which indicates a bulk same-effect scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives like apply_audio_effect or state when not to use it, so it has clear context but not exhaustive exclusions.

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