resolve_set_clip_transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses pre-write validation and that the call returns original values plus any partial failure. This gives agents a realistic model of side effects and error handling, although it does not cover permissions or full rollback semantics.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the operation and immediately give ranges, targeting, validation, and return behavior. Every sentence adds non-redundant information with no filler.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description covers purpose, targeting, validation, and return shape; since an output schema exists, it does not need to detail the JSON fields. The main missing context is the exact semantics of omitted/null properties and pan/tilt units.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the text adds meaningful semantics: numeric ranges for zoom, rotation, and opacity, 1-based clip/track indices, and the playhead default. It does not explicitly state that null-valued parameters mean 'leave unchanged' or give pan/tilt ranges, so it falls short of full compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set' applied to clip transform fields (pan/tilt, zoom, rotation, opacity). It distinguishes this setter from siblings like resolve_get_clip_transform and resolve_set_clip_speed by naming exactly which properties are modified.

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?

It clearly states the targeting modes—playhead or explicit 1-based track/clip indices—so an agent knows how to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison, but the field list implicitly separates it from related setters; the guidance is clear, though not exhaustive.

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