set_clip_speed_qe

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

Annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false) say nothing about the tool being a no-op, so the description does the work of disclosing a critical behavioral trait: the tool will not perform any action. It stops short of describing what happens on invocation (error vs. no-op) or when one might ever attempt it.

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, front-loaded with the key word 'Unavailable,' and zero filler. It communicates the essential truth of the tool's state in the fewest words 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?

The description is honest but an agent calling this tool is unlikely to know what to do next. It doesn't point to any alternative workflow or sibling, which is a miss given 'speed_change' exists in the sibling list.

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 all three parameters are defined in depth. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable since the schema fully documents them.

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 does not say what the tool does, but instead explicitly states the operation is unavailable because Premiere exposes no supported scripting API for changing clip speed. This is honest and unambiguous, though it goes without a verb+resource description, it does so for a sensible reason.

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 implies the tool should not be used at all. It doesn't name an alternative (the sibling 'speed_change' tool exists), but it does strongly signal there is no supported path for this operation.

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