set_sequence_playback_range

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

Annotations declare mutation, idempotency and a destructive hint, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the undo transaction, that the sequence is saved, that tracks/sections/keys are not clipped, that the playback-range lock does not block the operation, and that range_set verifies the stored range against the request. This is rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 and scope before alternatives and the return shape. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information (semantics, safety, sibling routing), so nothing is padding, though the returns block makes it long.

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?

Covers lookup scope, frame semantics, safety/undo/save behavior, lock interaction, sibling routing, and even embeds the return shape despite no output schema existing. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents inclusive/exclusive bounds; the description nonetheless adds unit and rounding semantics ('tick-resolution frames ... rounded') that the schema omits, giving it value above the baseline of 3.

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 lookup scope ('found by asset name under /Game'), and explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (set_sequence_duration, set_sequence_view_range, set_sequence_working_range). An agent can distinguish it from those siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with conditions: 'To set a length in seconds from 0 use set_sequence_duration; the editor-only timeline windows are set_sequence_view_range and set_sequence_working_range.' This is textbook when-to-use-which guidance with no inference required.

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