speed_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states the basic effect without details on side effects (e.g., duration changes, audio pitch impact) or reversibility. It does not mention that the operation modifies clip duration or that pitch can be preserved via a parameter. This leaves a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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, clear sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the primary purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is too minimal to fully address operational context. It omits important aspects like the impact on audio (despite the maintainAudio parameter), the fact that speed changes affect clip duration, or any constraints on speed values. A user would need to infer these from the schema, which is incomplete without additional context.

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 all parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Speed multiplier (0.1 = 10% speed, 2.0 = 200% speed)'), giving a high schema coverage of 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it. Examples or default values in the description would have elevated the score.

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 identifies the action ('Changes') and the target ('playback speed of a clip'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It distinguishes the operation from similar tools like 'set_clip_speed_qe' by using the explicit phrase 'playback speed.' However, it could be slightly more specific about the context (e.g., timeline vs. source clip), preventing a perfect score.

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, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description is limited to a single declarative sentence, providing no explicit context about scenarios where this tool is preferable to others. No alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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