create_sequence_from_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral details: settings derived from the first item, no preset required, no dialog, and confirmation of existence. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or failure behavior, leaving some gaps.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the behavioral details, and the typical use case. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavior. However, it does not state what is returned (if anything) or prerequisites like whether items must already exist in the project, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting 'one or more' items and that 'derives settings from the first item', clarifying the significance of item order—something the schema does not convey.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a new sequence built from one or more project items, and confirm it exists.' It uses a specific verb 'create' and a specific resource 'new sequence from project items', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sequences or add_to_timeline.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Useful for making a scratch sequence to experiment in' and notes 'needs no preset and opens no dialog.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient to understand when this tool is appropriate.

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