Premiere plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'invoke' aligns with this. However, the description adds no further behavioral context—no details on side effects, what might be destroyed, required permissions, or rate limits. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add value beyond what annotations state.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler words, and the two primary actions are front-loaded. It is concise and efficient, though the brevity contributes to its vagueness. It earns a high score for conciseness, but the structure does not aid clarity beyond that.

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 tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the semantic plugin adapter, expected parameters, invocation patterns, return formats, or any usage details. An agent would have no idea how to call this tool correctly, making the description inadequate for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters (actionId, args, target, etc.). It provides no meaning for the required actionId or any of the optional fields. The description entirely fails to compensate for the absence of parameter documentation, leaving the agent without any information to construct valid calls.

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 two distinct verbs and resources: 'inventory installed effects/extensions' (read) and 'invoke a versioned semantic plugin adapter' (write/execute). It clearly identifies the domain (plugins/effects) and differentiates from the immediate naming. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like premiere_capabilities or premiere_operations, so it's clear but lacks sibling 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?

The description mentions two possible actions but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It does not name sibling tools or specify conditions that would lead an agent to prefer this tool over others. For a tool with a broad scope, this is a significant gap.

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