remove_effect

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'remove effect' without explaining whether it removes all effects from selected clips, requires an effect index or name, is destructive, or what the result is. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive operation.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It lacks any structured information such as required input, scope, or side effects. A single vague sentence does not earn high marks for structure.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not mention how the effect is identified, whether it applies to the selection, or how it relates to sibling tools like remove_effect_by_name. The 'expanded operation' phrasing suggests a non-obvious behavior that remains unexplained.

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 declares zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description need not explain parameter details. However, the schema allows arbitrary properties (additionalProperties: {}), which is ambiguous, but context confirms parameter count is 0. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the baseline.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'remove effect.' It does not specify what effect, from what clip or track, or how it differs from siblings like remove_effect_by_name or remove_all_effects. The phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is generic boilerplate that adds no clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_effect_by_name, remove_all_effects, or copy_effects_between_clips. There is no mention of prerequisites like selecting a clip or whether it affects all effects or a specific one.

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