replace_clip_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects or behavioral traits. It only says 'replace clip media' without indicating whether this is destructive, what exactly is modified, or what happens to the original media. No operational details are provided.

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 extremely short and contains no wasted words, but it is also under-specified and not structured as a complete sentence. It reads as a label rather than an informative summary, so it earns a middle score.

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?

The tool appears in a large list of sibling tools, including 'replace_clip', but the description does not provide any distinguishing context. With no output schema and minimal description, the agent cannot infer what the tool does beyond a vague replacement action. The 'expanded operation' hint is 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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The description does not add parameter semantics, but none are required. The permissive schema (additionalProperties) is not referenced, but the tool has no documented parameters to clarify.

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: replace clip media" is essentially a restatement of the tool name. The phrase 'expanded operation' is vague and does not clarify what makes this different from the sibling tool 'replace_clip'. It lacks a specific verb or resource description beyond the name itself.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context where this tool is preferred. The presence of the sibling 'replace_clip' makes this gap more significant.

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