Stabilize Clip

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It adds the 'Uses QE DOM' implementation note, which hints that the effect is applied through a non-standard API path and that node_id is a QE DOM identifier. However, it does not disclose that Warp Stabilizer triggers a potentially lengthy analysis pass or that the clip's effect stack is modified, leaving notable behavioral traits unstated.

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 zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence, 'Uses QE DOM.', is a terse fragment that earns its place as an implementation qualifier but is less informative than a fully formed statement would be.

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 burden is lowered by the presence of an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations, but meaningful context is still missing: no warning about Warp Stabilizer's analysis time, no prerequisite that node_id refer to a valid video clip, and no pointer to the sibling get_qe_clip_info as a source for the QE DOM node id. The tool is minimally invocable with one required parameter, but the operative context is incomplete.

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 method (enum plus default 'Subspace Warp'), node_id, and smoothness (default 50 with the cropping trade-off). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail; the 'Uses QE DOM' statement only weakly disambiguates node_id as a QE DOM-specific identifier. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Apply'), a specific resource ('the Warp Stabilizer effect'), a target ('a clip'), and the purpose ('video stabilization'), which makes the tool's function clear and distinguishes it from the generic sibling apply_effect. However, it does not explicitly name overlapping siblings or state scope boundaries, so it stops just short of full 5-level differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_effect, color_correct, set_time_interpolation, or reverse_clip, all of which also operate on clips. There are also no stated prerequisites (e.g., the clip must be a video clip with motion) or exclusions, so the agent must infer selection logic from the name alone.

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