screenslick_apply_commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Apply', implying mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, what side effects occur on the timeline, or potential error states. This is insufficient for a potentially destructive action.

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 very concise at two sentences, with no superfluous text. The prerequisite guidance is placed logically after the main action. However, its brevity sacrifices completeness for conciseness, preventing a perfect score.

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 complexity (a nested array parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It lacks details on command structure, dry run behavior, the purpose of the description field, return values, and error handling. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters (commands, dryRun, description). It only loosely refers to 'batch of validated creative edit commands', which maps vaguely to the commands array but adds no structural or format details. The other two parameters are completely ignored.

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 a batch of validated creative edit commands to the editor timeline, with a specific verb 'Apply' and resource 'editor timeline'. It also references a prerequisite tool (screenslick_get_capabilities), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like export or capture.

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?

The description explicitly instructs the agent to call screenslick_get_capabilities first to learn valid command shapes, providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, losing a point for completeness.

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