set_sequencer_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that this 'adds or updates' a track, implying mutation, and mentions the return value ('Dict with success flag and track info'). However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether existing keyframes are overwritten), prerequisites (asset must exist, actor must be bound), or reversibility. This is adequate but not rich.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (args, returns, KB, example). It is longer than minimal but every sentence contributes: purpose, usage, parameters, return, and a KB reference. No fluff, though the example could be shortened without losing value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, output schema available), the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, how to call it with parameters, what it returns, and a knowledge base pointer. It does not detail failure modes or asset-specific requirements, but those are likely expected of a sequencer tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all four parameters with concrete examples: sequence_path shows a typical asset path, track_type lists valid examples, and keyframes shows a sample dict structure. This goes well beyond the bare schema, but it does not specify value/format requirements per track type (e.g., Transform uses vector, Visibility uses bool), so it is not a 5.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Add or update a track on a Level Sequence (Sequencer) asset.' It immediately distinguishes itself from generic actor manipulation tools (e.g., set_actor_transform) by stating its purpose for cutscene/cinematic animation, and enumerates track types that clarify scope.

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 provides a clear context: 'Use this to animate actors in a cutscene/cinematic.' It states the intended use case and gives track type examplesunctive. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives or conditions where another tool should be used, so it falls short of a 5.

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