extract_selection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state side effects (e.g., ripple edit, deletion, irreversibility), safety requirements, or behavior beyond the name. The phrase 'extract selection' is ambiguous.

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 brief, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It provides no meaningful information beyond the tool name, so it does not earn 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 lack of schema details, annotations, and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the operation does, how it interacts with the timeline, or its relationship to similar tools.

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 defines zero parameters, and the description adds nothing about parameters. Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: extract selection' essentially restates the tool name without explaining what 'extract' does mechanically (e.g., removing selected clips and rippling the gap). It fails to distinguish this from similar sibling tools like lift_selection or remove_selected_clips.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or contrasts with related selection/removal operations.

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