apply_effect

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it: it never says whether the effect is appended or replaces an existing one, whether the operation is undoable, what permissions or active-sequence state are required, or what happens if the effect name is ambiguous. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the video/audio distinction placed in a clarifying parenthetical. No wasted words, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of the missing behavioral detail.

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?

This is a 4-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should establish prerequisites (active sequence, existing clip, effect must come from get_effects_list) and describe the result. None of that is present, leaving an agent to infer everything from the schema alone.

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%, and the schema already explains trackType enum, 0-based indices, and that effectName comes from get_effects_list. The description adds no semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: adding an effect to a clip, with the useful elaboration that video effects apply to video clips and audio effects to audio clips. It is distinguishable from siblings like remove_effect and get_clip_effects, though it never explicitly contrasts with apply_transition, which is the nearest ambiguous neighbor.

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 of when to use this versus apply_transition, set_effect_property, or add_keyframe, nor any prerequisite such as needing an active sequence or a validated effect name. The only implicit routing is the video/audio parenthetical, which the enum in trackType already conveys.

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