apply_audio_effect_to_all_clips

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the execution model ('one ExtendScript call') and that it returns per-clip results. However, it does not mention whether the effect replaces or augments existing effects, undo behavior, or failure handling, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The 'Bulk:' prefix front-loads the key differentiator, and each sentence adds value: scope, return shape, and efficiency rationale.

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?

The combination of the description and 100% schema coverage gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool: target sequence, effect name, optional parameters, and return granularity. Since there is no output schema, 'Returns per-clip results' is somewhat minimal but adequate for a bulk operation; missing error/undo details would be nice but are not essential.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the description is not required to repeat them. It adds useful context like 'single audio effect' and 'all clips,' but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'applies a single audio effect to ALL audio clips of a sequence.' The 'Bulk:' prefix and 'Saves N MCP roundtrips' clearly distinguish it from per-clip tools like apply_audio_effect. This is unambiguous.

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 'Bulk:' prefix and 'when calibrating or applying same chain' give clear contextual guidance on when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the roundtrip-saving rationale strongly implies the intended use case.

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