apply_spotlight_mask

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 mentions 'dynamic or static', 'feathering', 'ambient darkness', and 'animated sweep keyframes', but it does not disclose whether applying the mask overwrites existing effects, whether it modifies the source item, or what side effects or state changes occur. For a mutation-like tool with 21 parameters, this is a significant transparency 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and it communicates the core purpose plus several key behavior features efficiently. Its brevity is a virtue, though given the parameter count it could be somewhat more structured without becoming bloated.

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?

With 21 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and no usage guidance, a one-sentence description is grossly insufficient. An agent cannot know the meaning of most parameters, the coordinate systems, frame semantics, or what 'dynamic' versus 'static' requires. The output schema does not compensate for the missing input semantics.

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%, and the description only hints at a few parameters: feathering maps to soft_edge, ambient darkness maps to ambient_brightness, and animated sweep keyframes maps to keyframes/animate. It provides no meaning for shape, width/height, center_x/center_y, start/end radius, start/end frame, track_index, or mask_name, leaving most of the 21 parameters semantically unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('spotlight reveal mask'), and characterizes it as dynamic or static with adjustable feathering, ambient darkness, and animated sweep keyframes. This clearly identifies the tool and differentiates it from sibling effect tools like apply_blur_effect, animate_zoom, or keyframe_clip_saturation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, what input context it requires (e.g., selected clip/timeline), or when the dynamic versus static options should be used. The description implies a spotlight effect but never states exclusions or conditions that would help an agent route correctly.

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