set_clip_selection

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the operation name. It does not mention side effects, selection behavior (replace/add/toggle), whether it works on timeline clips or project items, or any required context. This is a minimal, non-informative description for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single phrase restating the tool name does not provide structured or useful information, and the 'expanded operation' wording is unexplained.

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?

For a selection operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter definitions, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'expanded operation' means, how to specify the clip selection, what the operation returns, or how it relates to the many sibling selection tools. The agent cannot reliably invoke or interpret the result of this tool.

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 formal parameters and the context reports 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to explain. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. However, the 'additionalProperties' permission in the schema could imply arbitrary inputs, but since no concrete parameters are defined, the description's lack of param detail is not penalized.

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 'set clip selection' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, providing no detail about what specific operation is performed or how it differs from sibling tools like select_all_clips, select_clips_in_range, or deselect_all_clips. The prefix 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' adds no clarifying information and is vague.

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 other selection-related siblings. The description does not indicate whether it replaces the current selection, adds to it, or is intended for a specific workflow, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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