Crop Clip

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it can either add a new Crop effect or update an existing one, and adding uses the legacy QE catalog only when the clip lacks the effect. This goes beyond the basic write status.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the legacy QE note earns its place by clarifying an important implementation detail about effect creation.

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 combination of description, complete schema, and output schema covers the essential operational behavior. The main gap is minor: the legacy QE catalog phrase is unexplained, though it does not prevent correct use of the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters and their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond noting that requested values are read back, which is expected given the schema's completeness.

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 a specific verb and resource: applying or updating Premiere's Crop effect on one video clip. It also conveys that values are read back, and the focus on the Crop effect distinguishes it from generic effects tools like apply_effect.

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 context is implied rather than explicit. The description indicates this tool is for Crop effect operations on a single clip, and the add-vs-update distinction is helpful, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling alternatives like apply_effect or set_clip_properties.

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