lift_selection

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it reveals almost nothing: no mention of selection requirements, undo behavior, or whether the operation is destructive. The phrase 'expanded operation' faintly hints this is an internal menu-command passthrough, which offers marginal credit, but consequences remain undisclosed.

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?

Eight words with no filler and the meaningful qualifier ('expanded operation') front-loaded. It's terse and gets to the point, though that terseness borders on under-specification.

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 parameter-less tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is the only source of context, yet it omits critical operational context like whether a selection must exist, whether the command is undoable, and how it diverges from semantically similar operations such as extract_selection. A couple of explanatory sentences would have sufficed.

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 tool correctly takes zero parameters, making schema coverage trivially 100% and rendering parameter documentation unnecessary. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4; the description has nothing to add and correctly doesn't attempt to.

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 phrase 'lift selection' merely restates the tool name, making this essentially tautological. The only added context is that it's a 'Premiere Pro expanded operation,' implying a direct passthrough to an internal command, but the core action of 'lifting' remains unexplained. It does not distinguish from siblings like extract_selection or remove_selected_clips.

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?

Zero guidance is given on when to invoke this tool versus any of the ~300 siblings. Given overlapping operations like extract_selection, ripple_delete, and remove_selected_clips exist in the sibling list, explicit when-to-use or alternative-naming would be highly valuable but is entirely absent.

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