apply_effect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a bare mutation statement by revealing that after applying the effect, the tool identifies the newly created component and verifies parameter readbacks. This gives the agent a sense of the post-conditions and return behavior, though it does not cover failure modes or error handling.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and packs additional behavioral details without fluff. It is concise, clear, and every clause adds meaningful information. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description partially addresses the return value by stating it 'identifies the exact newly created component,' suggesting a returned handle or ID. It also hints at verification of parameter readbacks. However, it does not specify the exact return format or error behavior, leaving some ambiguity for agent usage. Given the moderate complexity, this is nearly complete but not fully.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three properties (clipId, effectName, parameters), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond the schema; it mentions parameter verification but does not elaborate on how the parameters object is structured or used. Given full schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Applies a visual or audio effect to a clip') with the target resource (the clip). It also adds distinct behavioral details ('identifies the exact newly created component, and verifies parameter readbacks') that set expectations and differentiate it from sibling tools like apply_audio_effect (audio-only) or batch_apply_effect (multiple clips).

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_apply_effect or apply_audio_effect. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool is preferred. Usage is only implied by the generic action described, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list.

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