Apply layer template to clips

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true; the description earns credit by disclosing that replace swaps (destroys) existing clip layers, that templates are not linked afterwards, that rerender controls whether finished clips update now or later, and what the response contains including skipped clipIds with reasons. It does not mention permission requirements or whether the call is synchronous/queued, which for a destructive batch mutation would be useful.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then parameters, then return shape — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The prose is over-compressed in places ("the intro / outro it sets as each clip's own", "bumpers: slots set"), which costs a little readability but not much length.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return payload (updated, rerendered, skipped with reasons, layersSkipped, bumpers), and it covers every parameter's behavioral consequence plus the non-linkage semantics. Remaining gaps are peripheral: sync vs async execution, partial-failure semantics beyond the skipped list, and permission prerequisites for a destructive batch write.

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 mode, clipIds, rerender, projectId and templateId are already fully documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them. The only genuinely additive semantics is the caveat about layerTemplateId on update_project affecting only later-created clips. Baseline 3 applies 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?

"Write a template onto clips of one project" names a specific verb (write/apply) and resource (layer template → clips), and adds scope (up to 200 clipIds, or all). "Not linked afterwards" separates it from the template-management siblings (save_layer_template, update_layer_template) that would otherwise look similar. An agent can distinguish this from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

It gives the operative decision rules: mode replace vs add, rerender true/false, and clipIds omitted = every clip. The note that "update_project settings.layerTemplateId only affects clips created later" implicitly tells the agent this is the tool for retroactive application, which is a strong when-to-use signal. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool for the settings-only path.

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