set_motion_scale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema: the tool verifies the readback value after setting. However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether the change is undoable, what happens on failure or readback mismatch, or how clip targeting parameters interact.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the unit, the target object, and the post-write verification. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and verification but leaves open how the multiple clip-identification parameters (clip_name vs clip_index vs clip_node_id) resolve and how uniform_scale and scale_width interact. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 88%, so the schema already documents scale, clip_name, clip_index, track_index, clip_node_id, uniform_scale, and scale_width. The description's only parameter-level contribution is repeating the percentage example, which the schema also gives. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Set) and resource (Motion Scale percentage on a video clip), which clearly separates it from siblings like set_motion_position and set_motion_rotation. The parenthetical example (100 for 100%) pins down the unit. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, 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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many motion/clip-setting siblings. Usage is only implied by the verb and resource. An agent must infer that this is the tool for uniform/non-uniform scaling versus position or rotation.

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