set_playback_range_locked

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: 'overwrite-setter' clarifies the semantics, and the Returns block reveals the operation persists to disk (saved, save_error) and that the value is verifiable via IsPlaybackRangeLocked(). It does not detail permissions or failure modes beyond save_error.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise parenthetical about idempotence and a compact return-value summary. Nothing is wasted, though the inline 'Returns:' text is slightly denser than a separate line would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so spelling out the return shape (sequence_name, locked, saved, save_error?) genuinely fills a gap. Combined with the idempotence and read-back notes, this is complete enough for a simple 2-parameter setter, though persistence/undo implications could be stated more explicitly.

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% — both sequence_name and locked are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a precise verb + resource (set whether a Level Sequence's playback range is locked) and names the underlying engine call (UMovieScene::SetPlaybackRangeLocked). An agent can distinguish this from sibling lock-related setters (set_marked_frames_locked, set_section_locked) because the scope is explicitly the whole sequence playback range.

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 notes it is an overwrite-setter and that the flag is read back via IsPlaybackRangeLocked(), which implies verify-by-read usage. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives like set_sequence_playback_range or the section/marked-frame lock tools, so usage is only implied rather than guided.

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