set_clip_properties_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return format (per-clip result array with `applied` map and `success` flag), defines success strictly (true only when EVERY property was found and set), and notes that missing properties are reported rather than silently ignored. It doesn't cover side-effects like overwriting existing properties, but the transparency level is above average.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and speed advantage. The second sentence is dense but conveys critical behavioral details about return values and error handling, earning its place. No fluff or repetition.

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 batch operation with nested input and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return behavior, success semantics, and error reporting. It could mention prerequisites like clips having the Motion effect, but that's implicit. It also stands out against a large sibling list by clearly differentiating itself.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including the exact pixel-based position semantics and normalization. The description reinforces the property names but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Per rubric, a baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 applies Motion properties (opacity/scale/rotation/position) to multiple clips in a single round-trip, distinguishing it from the singular set_clip_properties sibling. The verb 'Applies' with specific resource and scope, plus the ~50x speed comparison, makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 clarifies when to use this batch tool vs the singular alternative ('~50x faster than one set_clip_properties call per clip') and provides a concrete use case ('per-speaker framing across a whole rebuilt edit'). It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or other alternatives like individual setter tools, but the 'MANY clips' emphasis implies single-clip usage should go elsewhere.

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