copy_effects_between_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 merely says 'copy effects between clips' and 'expanded operation' but does not reveal which clips serve as source vs. destination, whether the operation is destructive to the destination's existing effects, whether selection state is required, or what the result looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool that must act on unstated clip targets.

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 text is short (one sentence), but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. The phrase 'expanded operation' is filler that does not earn its place, and the sentence front-loads a vague qualifier instead of concrete behavioral detail.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, an open parameter schema, and no parameter documentation, the description alone must make the tool callable. It fails to explain the source/destination relationship, selection requirements, or the nature of the 'expanded' behavior. Structure is a completely inadequate 2.35 for an operation that must know which clips to act upon.

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 schema is an open object with `additionalProperties: true` and zero defined parameters, meaning callers could pass arbitrary properties that are completely undocumented. The description adds nothing about what parameters are accepted, such as source clip, destination clip, or effect names. The 'expanded operation' phrase does not compensate for the 0% effective parameter documentation.

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 verb ('copy') and resource ('effects') with a scope ('between clips'), which is clear at a surface level. However, 'expanded operation' is unexplained jargon that adds no meaning, and the definition does not distinguish this from the closely-related sibling `copy_effect_values`. An agent cannot tell which tool copies effect instances vs. effect parameter values.

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 versus `copy_effect_values`, `batch_apply_effect`, or `apply_effect`. No mention of prerequisites such as which clips must be selected, whether a source and destination clip must be identified, or whether the active sequence matters. The context is entirely absent.

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