effects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the domain list. It does not say whether actions mutate the project, whether they are reversible, what permissions are needed, or how errors surface for an unknown action.

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 text is short and the domain list is front-loaded, which is good, but this reads as under-specification rather than genuine concision. The bracketed action count is a useful hook that is never followed through.

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 15-action multiplexed tool with no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented nested args object, and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent has no basis for choosing an action value or shaping the args payload.

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 required 'action' string has no enum, so the agent must guess the 15 valid action names. The description's '[15 actions]' note signals the count but enumerates none of them, and the nested 'args' object is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 enumerates the resource domain (video effects, transitions, adjustment layers, effect masks, presets) and discloses that it is a 15-action dispatcher, but it never states a verb or names any of the 15 actions. It also fails to distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as masks, vfx3d, and color_grade, so an agent cannot confidently route among them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like masks, vfx3d, and color_grade plausibly covering adjacent territory, the absence of any routing rule is a real gap rather than a minor omission.

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