set_clip_properties_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return structure (per-clip result array with `applied` map and `success` boolean), defines success condition ('true only when EVERY requested property was actually found and set'), and states that missing properties are reported rather than silently ignored. It does not mention error handling for invalid clip IDs or partial failures beyond the success flag, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, speed advantage, and return semantics are all covered without fluff. The key differentiator (batch and speed) is front-loaded, making it scannable. No redundancy or vague filler.

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 batch operation with a single compound parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the input (clips and properties), the return format (per-clip results with `applied` map), and success criteria. It does not mention error handling for invalid clip IDs or the need for an active sequence, but these are likely covered by the tool's domain context. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., position is described as 'Position in PIXELS ...' and opacity as 'Opacity 0-100'), so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds reference to the `applied` map fields but that concerns output, not parameter semantics. Thus it provides marginal value beyond the schema, consistent with the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 ('Applies'), resource ('Motion properties'), and scope ('to MANY clips in a single round-trip'), and explicitly contrasts with the singular sibling 'set_clip_properties' ('~50x faster than one set_clip_properties call per clip'). This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose and batch nature.

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 clear usage context ('the fast path for per-speaker framing across a whole rebuilt edit') and implies preference over the single-clip alternative via the speed comparison. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for single clip updates), leaving some inference to the agent. It does not mention alternatives beyond the speed reference.

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