set_supported_clip_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the name: the value is verified by reading it back from Premiere Pro. It does not cover mutation semantics, permission requirements, or what 'supported' excludes, leaving substantial behavioral gaps for a write tool.

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 tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the action and appends the verification behavior with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important context: what makes a property 'supported', how a failed read-back verification is surfaced to the caller, and whether this is the intended fallback over the specialized setters. The verification mention is a start but the definition is not fully self-sufficient.

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 all 10 parameters are already documented in the schema (including the value type union and the property/component name-vs-index distinction). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Set a supported property value on any component/effect of a timeline clip.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the specialized siblings (set_motion_scale, set_opacity, set_supported_blend_mode), so an agent must infer that this is the generic fallback.

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 phrase 'any component/effect' implies this is the general-purpose setter usable when no dedicated tool applies, which is useful implied scope. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing away from the many specialized setter siblings, so usage is only inferred rather than stated.

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