remove_effect

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description's disclosure of 'removes' adds little beyond that. The new value is the note about capability errors when the host cannot remove individual components, which is a useful behavioral nuance. No other side effects are mentioned, so the extra context is modest.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds a relevant edge-case behavior. Everything 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 schema and annotations cover the essential details, the description completes the picture by handling both identification methods and the capability error. It could mention that only one of effect_name/effect_index should be supplied, but that's implied by 'alternative' and not a major gap. Overall adequate for this tool's complexity.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that effect_name is an 'alternative to effect_index' and that effect_index is 0-based, with a pointer to get_clip_properties for discovery. This goes beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 action ('Remove an effect') and the resource ('from a clip') with a specific scope ('by its index or name'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_all_effects (plural) and remove_effect_by_name (name-only) by covering both index and name approaches.

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 context on how to specify the effect (index or name) and mentions the capability error scenario, which helps the agent understand when the operation might fail. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like remove_effect_by_name or indicate when to prefer one over the other, leaving a small gap.

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