set_anti_alias_quality

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false so mutation is expected, and description says 'Set' confirming this. Description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., what happens if Motion effect is absent, reversibility). With annotations covering 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?

Single sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with verb and resource, no extraneous information. Efficient and clear.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and a usage hint. It does not explain error conditions or visual effects of toggling anti-aliasing, but given the low complexity and full schema coverage, it is fairly complete.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so description adds limited extra meaning beyond stating the overall purpose. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics further, so baseline 3 is justified.

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?

Description specifies the verb 'Set' and the resource 'anti-alias quality on a clip's Motion effect'. It also provides context for when it's useful ('scaled/rotated clips'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like set_blend_mode or set_clip_scale.

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 hints at usage context ('useful for scaled/rotated clips'), which helps agents understand typical scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the context is sufficient for most cases.

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