resolve_set_clip_enabled

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only states the core operation. It doesn't disclose side effects, behavior when indices are invalid or playhead is not over a clip, reversibility, or any mutation warnings. For a setter tool, 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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and adds the key scoping detail without redundancy.

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 core calling convention is covered, but edge cases are not addressed: what happens when only one of clip_index/track_index is set, whether playhead requires both indices to be 0, and error handling are unclear. Given an output schema exists, return values are not essential, but these constraints affect 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 compensates well by defining the '1-based' semantics for track/clip indices and the playhead default. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema fields, which only provide types and defaults.

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 ('enable/disable') and explicitly names the resource ('a clip') with the targeting mechanism ('at playhead or explicit 1-based video track/clip indices'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_set_clip_transform or resolve_set_clip_speed.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to enable or disable a clip. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions or conditions described. It tells what it does, but not when to choose it over other clip operations.

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