resolve_remove_motion_blur

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates new media (non-destructive), does not replace timeline clips, names the output via 'filename', and notes that format/codec availability depends on the workstation. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the tool's name, though it does not mention side effects, permissions, or return behavior.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds a critical behavioral note (non-destructive). Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is extremely brief. It does not explain the purpose of 'extreme_mode' or 'folder_path', nor does it describe the expected output or any asynchronous behavior. For a rendering/processing tool, this is insufficient to guide an agent on correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It gives some context for 'clip_name' ('ONE uniquely named clip') and 'filename' ('names the native output'), but it does not explain 'codec', 'format', 'folder_path', or 'extreme_mode'. This leaves most parameters ambiguous, which is a significant gap given zero schema coverage.

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's function: 'Create new deblurred media from ONE uniquely named clip'. It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (deblurred media) and adds a key constraint ('ONE uniquely named clip') that distinguishes it from general media creation. It also clarifies it does not replace timeline clips, making its 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?

The description implies the tool is for deblurring clips, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., other media creation tools like resolve_create_compound_clip). It does note that it creates new media rather than modifying existing clips, which is a mild usage hint, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.

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