masks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about whether operations mutate the project, what permissions or clip selection is required, reversibility, or rate limits. '[16 actions]' signals breadth but hides which 16 actions exist.

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 short and the '[16 actions]' count is front-loaded and informative, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It omits everything needed to select and invoke a 16-action dispatcher.

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 multi-action tool with a nested, undocumented args object, no action enum, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. Nothing explains how the 16 actions are named or dispatched, so the definition cannot be used reliably.

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% for both parameters: 'action' is an unconstrained string with no enum, and 'args' is an undescribed nested object. The description adds no information about valid action values or argument shape, so an agent cannot construct a call correctly.

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 text is a noun list of adjacent subtopics (masks, roto, track mattes, matte refinement, keying) with no verb describing what invoking the tool actually does. It partially expands the bare name 'masks' and hints at scope versus siblings like tracking or vfx3d, but gives no indication of the 16 operations it dispatches.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no conditions, and no named alternatives among siblings such as vfx3d, tracking, or effects. The topic list only loosely implies a domain, leaving the agent to guess whether a matte or keying task belongs here.

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