crop_clip

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's side effects: reusing an existing Crop effect, adding one if absent, and that omitted parameters keep current/default values. It does not detail whether the operation is reversible or if any rendering/updates affect the timeline, but these are implicit.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose and key behavior in two sentences, with zero waste. It efficiently covers the reuse/add behavior and parameter omission handling.

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 has 7 parameters (all schema-described), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the necessary behavioral context: the effect reuse, addition, and default handling. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it lacks a note on error handling or available effect prerequisites.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter (top, left, right, bottom, zoom, edgeFeather, clipId), so the schema already provides full meaning. The description adds minimal extra value beyond clarifying omitted parameters keep defaults, which is already implied in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool crops a timeline clip using Premiere Pro's built-in Crop video effect, with specific behavior of reusing an existing effect or adding one. It distinguishes from siblings like 'trim_clip', 'set_clip_scale', 'razor_timeline_at_time' and others by specifying the use of the Crop 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to crop a clip via the Crop effect) and notes that omitted parameters retain current values. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., trim/clip operations), missing a full exclusionary note.

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