copy_effect_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, clipboard behavior, whether existing values are overwritten, what counts as 'effect values,' or what the operation returns. The description is functionally as opaque as a bare verb.

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 short but not usefully concise; it spends words on the empty phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' and then repeats the tool name. It under-specifies rather than being tight, and no important information is front-loaded because there is no information at all.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, no parameter documentation, and an empty description. An agent cannot determine what inputs it needs, what it does to its environment, or what it returns. This is completely inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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?

There are zero defined parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to compensate for. The description also provides none, but there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here, though the open additionalProperties schema is slightly concerning.

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 restates the tool name almost verbatim: 'copy effect values.' It does not specify the source, destination, or scope of the copy operation, and it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like copy_effects_between_clips or set_effect_property. The phrase 'expanded operation' adds no concrete meaning.

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 on when to use this tool, what state the project or selection must be in, or what alternatives exist. The description is purely declarative and leaves the agent to guess the invocation context. This is a complete absence of usage guidance.

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