set_effect_property

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, required context, and outcomes, but it only restates the function name. It doesn't mention that this mutates the effect, what happens to the original value, potential errors, or return values. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 short but under-specified. It is not effective conciseness; it reads as a title rather than an explanatory description. The phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is filler that doesn't convey value.

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 tool that sets an effect property, this description is completely inadequate. It lacks any information about the expected parameters, how to target an effect, valid property names, value formats, or error conditions. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent has essentially no useful context.

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 defines no properties (parameter count 0), yet the tool name implies at least effect identity, property name, and value. The description provides zero parameter guidance, so the agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool. The combination of an empty schema and a vague description makes parameter semantics entirely unclear.

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 effect property' provides a clear verb and resource, indicating the tool modifies a property on an effect. However, 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' adds no specificity, and it doesn't distinguish this from siblings like get_effect_properties or remove_effect beyond the verb. It's understandable but shallow.

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 instead of alternatives like apply_effect or set_clip_properties. The description lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a selected effect), workflow placement, or exclusions. The agent is left without direction.

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