Set clip fades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema: that values are clamped against each other within the clip, and that the address must resolve to exactly one clip. It says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what a successful response contains.

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?

Three dense sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the address precondition last. Every clause carries information the agent needs (ranges, clearing behavior, clamping, addressing).

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (what is set, clamping, addressing constraint) and the schema covers addressing fields and defaults. It stops short of explaining the addressing scheme ('the addressed clip' is never defined) or failure behavior on non-matching addresses, which would be needed for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning not in the schema: ramp offsets of 0 clear the offset and negative offsets reach outside the clip, and curve exponents are documented with the 0.5 = equal-power reference point. These clarify the semantics of the offset and curve parameters beyond their terse schema descriptions.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Sets the addressed clip's fade lengths') and enumerates the exact settings touched: fade lengths, ramp offsets, curve exponents. It is unambiguous against siblings like clip_gain and clip_speed, which operate on entirely different clip properties.

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?

Usage is only implied by the operation itself; there is no statement of when to prefer this over related tools or what preconditions besides addressing apply. The one genuine guideline given is the precondition 'The address must match exactly one clip,' which does tell the agent the call will fail on ambiguous addresses.

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