set_clip_version

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool changes the clip's active version, which is consistent with a non-destructive mutation. It does not explain side effects, version validity handling, or whether the change is reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It puts the action and the primary parameter values in the most useful order.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, but the input schema has 0% description coverage. The description is too thin for a mutation tool with three parameters, especially because it does not clarify what a clip reference is or when project is required.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the version modes and that an integer can be used as a version index, but says nothing about the required clip identifier or the optional project parameter. This leaves key invocation details undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Change a clip's active version." It also enumerates the version modes, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but no sibling appears to offer the same version-switching behavior.

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 is implied by the action: use this tool to switch a clip to a different version. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives for cases where the requested version does not exist.

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