apply_audio_effect_to_all_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating it operates in a single ExtendScript call, returns per-clip results, and saves roundtrips. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, whether existing effects are replaced or appended, or any prerequisites beyond what the schema mentions, leaving gaps about the mutation 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Bulk: applies...'), and each sentence adds value: one for the action and one for the benefits. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 involves a nested parameters object and no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format. It only vaguely says 'Returns per-clip results', without detailing the structure or error handling. It also does not distinguish from sibling batch_apply_effect, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role, though the bulk-all-clips scope is evident.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with detailed descriptions, including effectName examples and the note that sequenceId must be the active sequence. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics, so it stays at the baseline of 3 given 100% 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 verb 'applies', the resource 'a single audio effect', and the scope 'to ALL audio clips of a sequence', distinguishing it from singular or non-bulk audio effect tools. The 'Bulk:' prefix and 'in one ExtendScript call' further specify the operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Saves N MCP roundtrips when calibrating or applying same chain' and the 'Bulk' label imply use for applying the same effect to all clips. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like apply_audio_effect for single clips, so no explicit exclusions are given.

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