remove_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It only repeats the destructive verb 'remove' without disclosing what gets destroyed, how the target effect is identified, whether a clip must be selected, or what side effects occur.

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?

It is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. The phrase 'expanded operation' is filler, and the rest merely repeats the tool name.

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 large sibling set, the description is severely incomplete. It never clarifies how the effect is selected, whether it applies to the current selection, or whether it is distinct from remove_effect_by_name and remove_all_effects. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly.

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 declared parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but no parameters exist to document.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'remove effect' plus the filler phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation.' It does not state what effect is removed, from what target, or how this differs from siblings like remove_effect_by_name, remove_all_effects, or apply_effect.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over remove_effect_by_name, remove_all_effects, or batch_apply_effect.

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