rename_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, scope (e.g., project panel vs timeline), and failure modes. 'Rename clip' is terse and leaves ambiguous what 'clip' refers to, whether it alters source files, or requires an active selection. No useful behavioral detail is added beyond the name.

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 extremely short and free of fluff. The phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' adds a bit of noise and is not immediately informative, but the core 'rename clip' is front-loaded and efficient. It earns a 4 for conciseness, with slight deduction for the unnecessary prefix.

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 position among ~250 siblings and the absence of output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate for an agent to use it correctly. It fails to specify the operating context (e.g., selected clip, bin), behavior when no clip is selected, or relation to similar tools. A more complete description would clarify its unique use case relative to 'rename_project_item'.

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 has 0 parameters, and the schema confirms an empty property set. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because none exist, though it might have clarified how the target clip is identified (e.g., via selection).

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 'rename clip' clearly states the action (rename) and the resource (clip). It is specific enough for basic understanding, but does not differentiate from siblings like 'rename_project_item' or 'batch_rename_clips'—no distinguishing context is provided.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'rename_project_item', 'batch_rename_clips', and 'rename_track', but the description offers no criteria for choosing this tool over those. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection requirements, or scope.

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