Apply framing to the project

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, it discloses exactly what gets destroyed: every clip's own sections are cleared unless keepOverrides, and finished clips are re-rendered. It also notes forward behavior ("New clips get it too") and the response shape, which annotations alone would never convey.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and the applicability constraint, followed by the return shape. It is dense with parentheticals and nested clauses, but no sentence is filler.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, it covers the source of truth, the clear/keep behavior, the re-render default, the effect on future clips, and the returned fields. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and know the consequences.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the semantics of `at` (the clip's section at that point, else its first framed section) and how keepOverrides interacts with the project framing (other clips' sections "still win"). It adds meaning rather than restating field descriptions.

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 and resource: copy one clip's framing (mode, nudge, subject, crop) and make it the project's reframe/reframeAdjust. It also scopes the operation to recordings with a fixed layout, which separates it from per-clip tools like rerender_clip or update_clip.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use condition ("a recording whose layout never changes (a slide deck with a webcam tile, a fixed camera)"), which implicitly excludes variable-layout projects. It does not name an alternative tool for the case where layouts vary, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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