reverse_clip

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 only states the action without revealing side effects, such as whether the clip is modified in-place or a duplicate is created, whether audio pitch is affected and how, or if the operation is reversible via undo. The maintainAudioPitch parameter is entirely undocumented in the description, and there is no mention of any other behavioral traits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the core action efficiently with zero waste. Every word is necessary, and the structure prioritizes the most critical information immediately.

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 relatively simple two-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks contextual depth. It does not explain the effect on the timeline, how audio pitch is handled beyond the schema default, or whether the operation is non-destructive. An agent would need to infer or experiment to understand the full implications, but the tool's simplicity somewhat mitigates this gap.

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 input schema covers both parameters (clipId and maintainAudioPitch) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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 a specific verb ('reverses') and resource ('clip'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from all 150+ sibling tools, none of which perform a reverse operation, so an agent can immediately identify its unique function.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While no sibling directly reverses clips, tools like set_clip_speed or speed_change could achieve a similar effect with negative speed, but this is not mentioned. There is no context about prerequisites (e.g., selecting a clip first) or typical scenarios, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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