apply_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It goes beyond 'applies an effect' by stating the tool 'identifies the exact newly created component' and 'verifies parameter readbacks,' giving the agent expectations about return values and side effects. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or failure modes.

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, tightly composed sentence that leads with the core action and appends two meaningful behavioral details. Every phrase adds value, with no verbose or redundant content.

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 description covers the core operation and adds post-apply behaviors (component identification and readback verification), which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. However, it does not describe what is returned (e.g., component ID or verification results) or how parameters should be structured, though the schema covers parameter syntax.

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 input schema documents all three parameters with clear descriptions (coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Applies a visual or audio effect to a clip') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like remove_effect, batch_apply_effect, and list_clip_effects. It also adds unique behavioral details (identifying the component and verifying readbacks) that further differentiate it.

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 usage (apply an effect to a specific clip) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as batch_apply_effect for multiple clips or set_effect_property for adjusting existing effects. No exclusions or alternative names are mentioned.

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