invert_selection

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. It states the operation 'invert selection' but does not describe side effects, what becomes selected or deselected, whether it works on the active sequence, or whether it requires an existing selection. 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' adds no behavioral detail.

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 and the core action is front-loaded, but the phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is filler that does not earn its place. The overall structure is acceptable, but the limited content makes it more under-specified than genuinely concise.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description leaves out important context: the scope of the selection being inverted, whether this operates on clips in the active sequence, and what happens with an empty or partial selection. For a tool with many selection-related siblings, this is insufficient context.

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 and the schema is empty, so the description is not expected to document parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; while the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, none 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 states a specific action, 'invert selection,' which is a recognizable operation on the current selection. However, it does not clarify what domain the selection applies to (clips, markers, project items) and does not differentiate from sibling selection tools like select_all_clips, deselect_all_clips, or select_clips_in_range.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as select_all_clips or deselect_all_clips. There is no mention of prerequisites like having an active sequence or a non-empty selection, nor any exclusionary conditions.

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