set_clip_transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not state whether this overwrites existing transform values, whether omitted parameters are left untouched or reset, whether the operation is undoable, or what the return value is. It hints that time creates keyframes, which is useful, but the mutation semantics of a 17-parameter write are largely undisclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability list before the two non-obvious semantics. Almost every clause earns its place; only the 'fade' mention is left dangling since opacity is never connected to it.

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 17-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never says whether this replaces the clip's full transform or merges with existing values, and most optional parameters (anchors, crop edges, uniformScale) are left entirely undefined. An agent could call it but would likely guess wrong on merge semantics and crop units.

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 description adds real meaning the schema lacks for x and y: they are pixels of the frame center, with the center defined as width/2, height/2 – a genuinely non-obvious convention. It also clarifies that time keyframes the change. However, at 41% schema coverage, anchorX/anchorY, the four crop edges and opacity have no documented units or semantics in either place, and uniformScale is unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb set (position/scale/rotate/crop/fade) and the resource (a video clip), so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not mention the read counterpart get_clip_transform, so the sibling distinction is only implicit from the name.

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 note 'Give time to keyframe the change (e.g. for a zoom or move)' tells the agent how to animate a transform versus set a static one, which is genuine usage context. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_clip_transform, set_clip_speed or set_effect_property, and no prerequisites are stated.

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