set_clip_properties_batch

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 explains the return format (per-clip result array with an applied map) and the success semantics (success only when every property is found and set, with missing properties reported rather than silently ignored). This is valuable, though it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing properties or permission requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. It provides essential context (speed advantage) and return semantics in two sentences, with no filler or repetition of schema details. Every sentence earns 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?

The tool has one parameter, fully covered by the schema, and no output schema. The description compensates for the missing output schema by clearly explaining the return array structure and success criteria. It also covers the batch behavior and error reporting, making the tool's behavior sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, so parameters are fully described in the structured data. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond listing the property names (opacity/scale/rotation/position) already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: applies Motion properties (opacity/scale/rotation/position) to many clips in a single round-trip. It distinguishes itself from the singular set_clip_properties by emphasizing the batch capability and speed advantage, making it unique among sibling tools.

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 explicitly identifies this as the fast path for per-speaker framing across a rebuilt edit and compares it to set_clip_properties with a 50x speed advantage. This gives clear context for when to use the batch version, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for a single clip).

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