reverse_clip

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the primary effect (reverses playback), which is a mutation, and hints at audio pitch handling via the parameter description. However, it does not mention whether this operation is destructive/hard to undo, if it affects the source file, or if it applies to a sequence clip or project item, leaving potential ambiguities.

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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the purpose without any redundant information. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action.

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 two simple parameters, an output schema absence, and sibling tools that are similar (like speed_change), the description is minimally complete but lacks important context. It does not explain the effect on the timeline, whether it works on project items or sequence clips, or any side effects. More detail would help an agent select it correctly, but for a simple operation, it's acceptable.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, but the description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema says. However, since the schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the parameter `maintainAudioPitch` is well-documented in the schema, so the description doesn't add much. The tool description does not elaborate on how these parameters behave in practice, but the schema is sufficient, so a slight improvement over baseline is warranted because the 'maintainAudioPitch' parameter is clearly explained in the schema and the description mentions it implicitly.

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 action (reverses) and the resource (clip), and the verb 'reverses' distinguishes it from siblings like 'speed_change' and 'set_clip_speed' which are about speed, not direction. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the specific aspect of reversal (playback direction) beyond the name, but it's clear enough for a user familiar with video editing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'speed_change' or 'set_clip_speed'. The description only says what it does, not when it is appropriate. For example, it does not clarify that this affects playback direction and might be used for creative effects, nor does it mention any prerequisites like having a clip selected or in a sequence.

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