copy_effect_values

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms it copies values, aligning with annotations. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether existing values are overwritten, error handling for missing effects, or response format. Given that annotations cover basic safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise—only two sentences. It front-loads the core action and includes the essential precondition with no extraneous language. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description provides the key precondition. However, it lacks information on error conditions (e.g., effect not found, incompatible types), success/failure indicators, or example usage. It is minimally sufficient but feels incomplete for a production tool.

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%, with each parameter already described. The description adds no new meaning to the parameters beyond stating the effect must exist on both clips. It does not clarify node IDs or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is correct as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool copies property values from one effect to another clip's matching effect. It specifies 'all property values' and the precondition, distinguishing it from tools like 'copy_effects_between_clips' which may copy entire effects. However, it does not explicitly name that sibling tool.

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 a clear precondition: both clips must already have the same effect applied. This guides proper usage but does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., copy_effects_between_clips). No when-not-to-use or trade-offs are mentioned.

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