batch_rename_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only restates the tool name and adds an opaque 'expanded operation' label. It fails to mention whether it renames selected clips, what naming pattern is used, whether it is undoable, or the specific side effects on project items versus timeline clips.

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 short but wastes words on the jargon 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' and essentially repeats the tool's name without elaboration. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, as it neither front-loads useful details nor earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, this one-line description is severely inadequate. The agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool, what input to provide, or how it differs operationally from rename_clip, making the description nearly useless for 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?

The schema declares zero formal parameters yet allows additional properties, so the expected input structure is undefined. The description provides no explanation of the argument object, leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify the rename mapping. Baseline 4 for 0 params is lowered because the schema's additionalProperties suggests hidden parameters.

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 ('batch rename') and resource ('clips'), which clearly differentiates it from the single-item sibling 'rename_clip'. However, the phrase 'expanded operation' is vague and adds little clarity about what the batching actually entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of rename_clip or how to prepare for it (e.g., selecting clips first). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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