set_scale_width_height

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation. It does not reveal whether selection is required, how width/height values are interpreted (pixels, percent, normalized), whether the change is destructive or reversible, 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?

The text is short, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise: 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is filler, and the operative phrase repeats the tool name. A minimal description of the affected resource and the meaning of the dimensions would be more efficient.

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 an apparently mutating Premiere Pro operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an unconstrained input object, the description is far too incomplete. The agent cannot determine what object is being modified, under what conditions, or what arguments to pass, especially given the large set of sibling scaling tools.

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 declares zero named parameters (with additionalProperties true), so there is little parameter documentation burden per the zero-parameter baseline. The description's mention of 'scale width height' provides a weak hint about the intended dimensions, though exact key names, types, and units remain undefined.

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: 'set scale width height' names the action but not the resource or scope, and 'expanded operation' is unexplained. It does not distinguish the target (clip, effect, motion properties) from sibling tools like set_clip_scale or set_uniform_scale.

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 statement about when to use this operation versus the many related sibling tools (set_clip_scale, set_scale_to_frame_size, set_uniform_scale, etc.), and no mention of prerequisites such as an active sequence or selected clip. This is an absence of guidance rather than misleading guidance.

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