set_clip_name

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the action but omits details like whether the operation is destructive (overwrites existing name), whether it requires a specific session state (e.g., clip must be loaded), or if the changes take effect immediately. This lack of behavioral disclosure is notable for a tool that modifies state.

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 compact, with a single clear sentence and a bulleted parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and then details params. This is efficient, though it could arguably omit the parameter list since the schema provides that, but it adds the 1-based note. For that reason, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (though none is shown here), the description covers the basics. However, there is no mention of what happens if the index is invalid, if the operation can fail, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this lack of error-handling context makes it incomplete. The sibling tools offer similar operations, but it's not clear how this interacts with other clip modifications.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does, by explaining each parameter: track_index is 1-based, clip_index is 1-based, and name is the new name. While this is concise, it adds clarity over the schema, which just lists types. However, it doesn't provide format constraints on 'name' (e.g., length, allowed characters), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 the verb ('Set') and the resource ('the name of a clip'), which is specific. It lists the necessary parameters with brief explanations. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like set_clip_property, which might also be able to set a clip's name, so it loses a point for not offering definitive differentiation.

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 implies when to use it (when you want to rename a clip) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like set_clip_property. It also doesn't clarify any prerequisites, such as whether the clip must exist or whether the track must be selected.

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