remove_effect_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals only that an effect is removed, but not the scope (selected clip, all clips, or sequence), failure behavior, or whether this is destructive in a way that requires confirmation. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

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 a single concise sentence, with the core action front-loaded. The phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is slightly generic and could be removed, but the overall clutter is minimal.

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, and no parameter schema, the tool description must carry more weight. It does not explain which effects are eligible, how the effect name is matched, or how this differs from the many related sibling tools. An agent would likely need to guess at the call format and behavior.

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 declares zero formal parameters and only allows additional properties, so the description's hint that removal is 'by name' adds meaningful semantic guidance. However, it does not specify the exact parameter key or format, so the value is partial.

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 verb and resource ('remove effect') plus the selection mechanism ('by name'). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'remove_effect' or 'remove_all_effects', so it stops short of a 5.

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 'remove_effect' or 'remove_all_effects'. An agent must infer when this operation is appropriate and how it differs from those alternatives.

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