enable_all_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact effect (sets disabled=false), the undo behavior (single undo entry, Ctrl+Z), the no-op nature on already-enabled clips, and the return value (activeSequence object). This is comprehensive and goes beyond what the schema (empty) or annotations (none) provide.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the primary action, then the use case, then behavioral details (undo, no-op, return). Every sentence adds value; there's no fluff. It is appropriately detailed for a no-argument tool without being verbose.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, side effects, safety, and the return structure. It even hints at comparing activeSequence across calls to detect sequence switches. No additional context is needed for correct 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 parameters, and the description correctly confirms 'No arguments'. Since the schema already reflects this (100% coverage, no properties), the description adds no parameter details—but none are needed. The baseline for 0 params is 4, as there is nothing missing.

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 the verb and resource: 'Enable every clip on every video and audio track of the active sequence'. It specifies the exact operation (sets disabled=false) and provides a concrete use case (Multi-Cam edits, Lift, manual disables). This distinguishes it from partial operations like batch_enable_disable, which the description implicitly contrasts by emphasizing 'every clip' and 'no enabled some, disabled some mode'.

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 gives explicit context for when to use it: after operations that disable many clips, when the user wants to restore all at once. It also provides safety guidance ('safe to run on any sequence' due to no-op on already-enabled clips). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like batch_enable_disable or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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