Apply Send Clip To After Effects

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out the multi-step side effects: comp created with footage-layer audio off, AE project saved, Dynamic Link import, clip replacement preserving the original linked audio, mandatory confirmation, and single-use token. It even discloses the partial-failure contract ('a failure after the AE save leaves the comp in AE and reports where it stopped'), which is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot convey.

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 pipeline is front-loaded in the first sentence and the risk/failure note closes the description. It is dense but every clause carries operational meaning; only mild tightening would be possible.

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 multi-step cross-application mutation with a previewed token, the description gives sequence, prerequisites, and failure semantics, and an output schema covers return values. The one gap is that it does not mention the reviewed effects that will not carry over, which only surfaces in the confirm_send parameter description.

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 preview_token, confirm_send, idempotency_key and the expected_* guards are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds context about the source range and timeline span, but does not elaborate on the confirmation/token or idempotency semantics beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the full downstream pipeline: recheck the clip, build an AE comp with the exact source range, save, import over Dynamic Link, and replace the clip at the same span. It is clearly the commit counterpart to preview_send_clip_to_after_effects, so an agent can distinguish it from the preview sibling and from import_ae_comps.

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?

'Send the previewed clip' and 'Requires confirmation; the token is single-use' make clear this runs only after a preview has produced a token, and the confirm_send schema reinforces that a plan must be reviewed first. It never names the preview sibling explicitly or states when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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