sequencer-modifier_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits beyond it. It does not mention whether the operation appends or replaces modifiers, potential side effects (e.g., requiring an existing strip), or failure conditions. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure at best.

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 a single concise sentence that clearly states the purpose without filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning, making it an example of efficient, appropriately sized description.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a low-complexity schema, but even so the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the expected relationship between 'name', 'type', and 'modifier_name', nor does it address return behavior or required preconditions. The simple verb 'add' leaves important invocation details unspecified.

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 schema has 0% description coverage; property titles are the only semantic clues ('Strip name', 'Modifier type, e.g. BRIGHT_CONTRAST', 'Optional modifier name'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, leaving the agent reliant on titles that may be ambiguous (e.g., 'name' could refer to modifier name or strip name).

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 'Add a strip modifier to a sequence strip' clearly identifies the action (add), the resource (strip modifier), and the target (sequence strip). The specific verb 'add' distinguishes it from siblings like sequencer-modifier_set and sequencer-modifier_remove, though it doesn't explicitly contrast these alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that this creates a new modifier as opposed to setting an existing one, nor any context about prerequisites like having a strip selected. The sibling tools imply a family but the description offers no explicit usage direction.

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