blender_sequencer

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

Annotations already communicate that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful high-level context (operations are mutating and produce rendered output), but it does not disclose operation-specific effects such as whether adding a strip replaces existing strips or whether render writes files immediately.

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 sentences carry the core purpose and the key differentiating use case without filler. The content is front-loaded with the main actions and closes with a practical distinction, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with 11 operation-dependent parameters and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits mention of the 'list' and 'remove' operations, gives no operation-specific parameter guidance, and does not hint at return behavior or output content, leaving an agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

The description maps loosely to parameter groups: 'channels' suggests channel, 'frame range' maps to start/end or frame_start/frame_end, and 'movie or image sequence' relates to path and mode. However, schema description coverage is only 55%, and the description does not clarify the distinction between start/end and frame_start/frame_end or which parameters apply to each operation.

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 identifies the resource (video sequencer) and specific operations: adding strips, setting frame range, and rendering to a movie or image sequence. It also differentiates the tool's purpose from still-image rendering ('actual rendered video rather than a single still'), though it does not name a sibling tool explicitly.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the goal is an actual rendered video or image sequence, as opposed to a single still. It stops short of explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for basic routing.

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