remove_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Removes') but lacks critical details: whether this is destructive (permanently deletes the effect), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., alters clip duration), or provides confirmation of removal. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Removes') and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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 complexity of a mutation tool (removing effects) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavior (e.g., success/failure responses, error conditions), side effects, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters, the overall tool understanding remains insufficient for reliable agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions ('clipId' and 'effectName'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these parameters are needed. It doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., effectName must match exactly) or relationships between parameters, resulting in a baseline score.

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 action ('Removes') and the target ('an effect from a clip'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'apply_effect' by focusing on removal rather than application. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes an 'effect' (e.g., visual filter, audio effect) or the clip context (e.g., video editing), leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the clip must have an effect applied), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove built-in effects), or related tools like 'apply_effect' for adding effects. Without such context, an agent might misuse it or overlook necessary steps.

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