Set Sequence Audio Settings

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds only the 'active sequence' scoping constraint and nothing about reversibility, whether unset fields are preserved, or side effects on existing clips. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the affected fields parenthesized. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the two optional parameters are fully covered by the schema. The only gap is the lack of usage/routing context, which keeps it from a 5 for a tool embedded in a very dense set of set_sequence_* siblings.

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% and both parameters (sample_rate, channel_type with its 0-3 mapping values) are fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the two field names and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Change') and resource ('audio settings of the active sequence') and enumerates the affected fields (sample rate, channel type). This clearly separates it from siblings like set_sequence_frame_rate and set_sequence_resolution, though it never names an alternative 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing versus sibling inspectors such as inspect_sequence_av_settings or the broader set_sequence_settings. The agent must infer that this is the narrow audio-only setter from the tool name alone.

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