set_sequence_duration

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing that the package is marked dirty without saving and that the change is not undoable, which is exactly the destructive consequence an agent needs. It also quantifies the 0.01 s tolerance on duration_set and states frames are tick-resolution, adding concrete operational context.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and dense with useful constraints, but the return fields are enumerated twice: once in prose ('Returns previous_duration, actual_duration, duration_set ... start_frame and end_frame') and again as a full Returns object block. That duplication costs space without adding information.

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, yet the description supplies the return shape, the tolerance on duration_set, and the not-undoable/dirty-package semantics, so an agent has enough to call and interpret the result. The only shortfall is the absence of sibling routing guidance among the many sequence-range tools.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, including the 0<duration<=3600 rule and the asset-name-not-path constraint. The description echoes the parameter behavior but adds no syntax or format information 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 specific verb and resource ('Sets the playback range of a Level Sequence') plus the resolution scope and target range '[0, duration)'. An agent can tell it is a duration/range mutation, but the description never distinguishes it from very similar siblings such as set_sequence_playback_range, set_sequence_view_range, or set_sequence_working_range, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied through the mechanism detail ('found by asset name under /Game ... first match under /Game is used'), which tells the agent how the target is resolved but not when to pick this tool over the several other sequence-range setters. No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given.

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