speed_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and omits details like whether audio pitch is preserved (the maintainAudio parameter implies this is an option), whether the change is reversible, what happens to existing keyframes, or if the operation is undoable. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. However, it is so brief that it misses an opportunity to include usage or behavioral context without becoming verbose. Still, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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?

The tool has three parameters that are fully documented in the schema, and no output schema is needed. For a basic mutation, the description is functionally sufficient, but it lacks context about side effects, alternatives, and prerequisites. Given the abundance of sibling tools, more context would improve usability, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (speed, clipId, maintainAudio) are documented in the input schema. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what is already in the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameters.

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 clear verb ('Changes') and resource ('playback speed of a clip'). It is not a tautology and accurately conveys the action. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like set_clip_speed_qe or set_time_interpolation, which also modify speed-related properties, so it misses the top score.

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 the many alternatives (e.g., set_clip_speed_qe, set_time_interpolation, set_frame_blend). It does not mention prerequisites, selection requirements, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. An agent would have to infer usage from context, which is a significant gap.

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