close_all_source_clips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says source clips are closed, with no mention of side effects, scope (source monitor vs project vs sequence), reversibility, or expected outcomes, which is under-specified for a mutating operation.

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 appropriately short and the core action is stated clearly. However, the leading phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' is filler that repeats domain context without earning its place, keeping it from a top score.

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 zero-parameter, potentially destructive command with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly as terse as the tool name. It does not clarify what 'source clips' means, what exactly gets closed, or what the agent should expect afterward, and sibling tools like close_source_monitor and close_sequence make the ambiguity material.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add; schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter-level guidance is needed.

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 identifies a specific action ('close') and resource ('all source clips'), so it is clear what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like close_source_monitor or close_sequence beyond the resource phrase, and 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' adds no differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. It does not state that it applies to source monitor clips, nor contrast it with close_source_monitor, close_sequence, or close_project, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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