crop_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: an existing Crop effect is reused when present, otherwise one is added, and omitted parameters keep their current/default values. This goes beyond the schema's parameter definitions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 schema's thorough parameter documentation and the description's coverage of effect reuse and omitted-parameter behavior, the tool is well-specified for invocation. No output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained.

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 already covers all 7 parameters with descriptions and ranges, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by stating that omitted parameters retain current/default values and that existing effects are reused, which is not encoded in the schema.

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 ('Crops') and names both the resource ('timeline clip') and the mechanism ('Premiere Pro's built-in Crop video effect'). This clearly distinguishes crop_clip from generic transform or effect tools among the siblings.

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 provides clear context that the tool is for cropping clips via the built-in Crop effect and explains the conditional reuse behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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