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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Changes' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting linked clips or project state). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for this tool's 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 the tool's mutation nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like reversibility, permissions, or error conditions, nor does it hint at return values or side effects. For a tool that modifies clip playback, this leaves too many contextual gaps for reliable agent use.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (clipId, speed, maintainAudio) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining speed ranges or audio pitch implications. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Changes') and resource ('playback speed of a clip'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'trim_clip' or 'stabilize_clip' by focusing on speed adjustment rather than editing or stabilization. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an open project or specific clip state), nor does it suggest when not to use it (e.g., for audio-only adjustments). With many sibling tools for clip manipulation, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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