compare_frames

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the file-writing side effect and that measurement data is produced. It omits whether an existing output file is overwritten, whether Premiere must be connected/foregrounded for the "Comparison View", and whether anything in the project is modified.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the usage trigger. The "Scriptable Comparison View:" label prefix is the only slight overhead.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested region object and no output schema, the description covers what is produced (one image at outputPath plus measurements) and the sequence selection model. It leaves ambiguous whether the color measurements are returned in the response or only baked into the image.

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 parameter documentation is already handled. The description adds only the "same or different sequences" hint that explains targetSequenceName's optionality, which is useful but marginal.

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 chain (exports two frames, writes them side by side into one image) plus a secondary output (skin/midtone color measurements). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as measure_frame_color, capture_frame, and match_color.

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?

"Use before and after match_color" gives an explicit usage context tied to a named sibling. It also notes the frames may come from the same or different sequences, but gives no when-not guidance or pointer to measure_frame_color as a lighter alternative.

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