speed_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral details such as whether audio pitch is maintained by default, speed limits, or side effects like affecting keyframes or linked items. The 'maintainAudio' parameter is in the schema but not highlighted.

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, focused sentence that gets straight to the point. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 schema covers all parameter semantics, making up for the terse description. However, the tool is a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, and the description provides no behavioral context (e.g., defaults, side effects). It is minimally viable but lacks richness for a smooth decision-making process.

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%, with each parameter already well-documented (e.g., speed range, maintainAudio purpose). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score applies.

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 action ('Changes') and resource ('playback speed of a clip'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like 'set_clip_speed_qe', which also deals with clip speed.

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 alternative speed-related tools (e.g., set_clip_speed_qe, set_time_interpolation). The description only states what it does, not the intended use case or exclusions.

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