speed_change

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

The description reveals the single most important behavioral fact: the tool cannot perform its named operation because the underlying API does not exist, meaning a call will fail or be a no-op. Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: false) cannot convey this unavailability, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so explicitly.

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, zero filler, with the decision-critical word 'Unavailable' front-loaded before the explanation. The structure maximizes readability and the ordering is exactly right for an agent reader.

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 minimal 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description fully covers the available context by stating the tool's intended function and its impossibility. The only missing piece is pointing the agent to a viable sibling alternative like set_clip_speed_qe; everything needed to avoid invoking the tool is present.

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%, with each parameter (node_id, reverse, speed_percent) already documented with percent-meaning examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the correct baseline of 3; since the tool is unavailable, no further parameter semantics are needed.

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 states the intended function — changing a timeline clip's speed — and immediately discloses that it is unavailable because Premiere lacks a supported scripting API. This makes the tool's status unambiguous. It does not reference any sibling by name, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Unavailable' prefix clearly implies the agent should not call this tool, but the description never states when it should be used (effectively never) and names no working alternative from the sibling list, such as set_clip_speed_qe or reverse_clip. An agent must independently infer the proper workaround from sibling names, which is guidance the description itself withholds.

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