apply_blur_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, reversibility, or any consequences for the timeline. It also doesn't specify whether the operation is permanent or what happens to existing effects. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose without elaboration. Length is appropriate for stating the core function, and structure is clean.

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 high complexity (19 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), this description is far from complete. It does not explain parameter dependencies, how to set a gradual blur, what the output schema returns, or any usage context. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 19 parameters, the description must compensate but does not. It hints at 'dynamic' (relating to animate) and 'masked' (relating to mask_shape) but never maps these to actual parameters. An agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone, and the schema provides only titles and defaults, leaving meaning unclear.

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 (apply), the resource (blur effect), and the scope (static or dynamic, full frame or masked bounding region) on a timeline clip. It is specific enough to distinguish from other effect tools like animate_zoom or animate_color_fx, which are listed as siblings. The verb and modifiers leave little ambiguity about what the tool does.

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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or mention sibling tools at all. An agent would have no idea when to choose apply_blur_effect over other effects. This is a 'no guidance' case.

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