screenstudio_editor_apply

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and does so well: it covers ordered execution, animated vs instant application (show default), save-after-each-apply, checkpoint id, and the failure model (partial:true, failedAt, error, prior ops remain, no save, use restore with checkpointId). It does not contradict the annotations. What remains thin is the pacing/taste check return value and whether screenstudio_editor_view is needed to see the editor window.

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 a single wall of prose with one long sentence enumerating ops, another merging behavior and defaults, and a third covering checkpoint/failure semantics. It is front-loaded only in the first sentence; the middle is hard to parse as a list of supported operations, and the op vocabulary is buried inline. It crams schema-level detail (radius, bevel, chromaticAberration, edgeFalloff01) into the description where it duplicates the schema.

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?

Given the complexity (op union with 19 members, 10 top-level params, no output schema), the description covers the essential call contract: ordered ops, animated vs instant, save behavior, checkpoint/undo path, and the units convention. Missing are the shape of the return checkpoint value, what the pacing and taste check contains, and any mention of editor window state (screenstudio_editor_view) — the last is inferable but not stated.

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 only 20%, so the description should compensate, and it partially does: it names the ops, gives examples for config dotted paths, and clarifies unit conventions ('all times in source ms', 'target x/y 0-1', 'rects 0-1'). But with 10 parameters and many nested op schemas, top-level params like brand, style, sceneId, recipeOverrides, stepMs, save and show get almost no explanatory text beyond the schema defaults.

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 (Edit) and resource (the open project in the editor window), and the description is dense with the exact op vocabulary an agent needs to apply an edit batch. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like screenstudio_editor_restore (undo) and screenstudio_editor_state (read).

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?

Usage context is clear: 'Edit the open project live in the editor window' and the closing note about screenstudio_editor_restore with the checkpointId explicitly names the undo alternative. It does not, however, state when to use this tool versus screenstudio_editor_save, screenstudio_plan_edit, or screenstudio_check_pacing, which is a gap for a tool this heavy.

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