remap_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the matching algorithm (name similarity, model type, pixel count), that overrides take precedence over automatic matching, and that a new .xsq is generated rather than an existing one modified. It omits whether an existing output file can be overwritten, where the file is written, and whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then structured Args/Returns blocks for the detail. No sentence is filler — even the algorithm note and the multiple-shows fallback earn their place by changing agent behavior.

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?

No output schema exists, but the Returns section describes the mapping report, output path, and summary statistics, so the agent knows what comes back. Remaining gaps are about file-system side effects (output location, overwrite policy) for what is effectively a write operation.

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 entirely, and it does: each of the four parameters gets meaning, the pixel_threshold gets a range and default rationale (0.70 = at least 70% pixel similarity), and overrides gets precedence semantics. This is meaningfully more than the bare schema titles provide.

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+resource ("Import a sequence ... and remap it to your models") with the precise scope: from a different show layout into the user's own models. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_sequence and inspect_sequence, which do not perform cross-layout remapping.

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 opening sentence establishes the use case (importing a sequence authored against another show's layout), and the show_name text explains the fallback behavior when multiple shows exist. It never names an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so the agent must infer routing versus create_sequence.

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