reverse_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the basic action. It fails to disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, affects audio pitch by default, or what happens to existing clip properties. The existence of the maintainAudioPitch parameter is not mentioned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the primary purpose.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the effect on audio pitch and any prerequisites or side effects. It only states the base action, leaving the agent without enough context to confidently invoke the tool, especially regarding the optional maintainAudioPitch parameter.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context; the schema already documents clipId and maintainAudioPitch with their meanings.

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 'reverses' with a clear resource 'the playback of a clip', making the core function obvious. However, it doesn't differentiate from related tools like speed_change or set_clip_speed_qe that also modify clip playback characteristics.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_clip_speed_qe or speed_change. The intended context is only implied by the name and description.

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