pr_openSequence

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that it changes the active sequence in the timeline, but omits what happens if the sequence does not exist, whether a project must be open first, or whether it errors.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the application qualifier first and zero filler; every clause adds information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers intent but leaves the identifier format ambiguous, which is the main thing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0% and the single parameter 'sequence' is untyped beyond string. The description says only 'a sequence' and never clarifies whether it expects a name, index, or ID, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (open) and resource (sequence) plus the resulting state change ('make it active'), which distinguishes it from pr_getSequenceState and pr_createSequence. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the call to activate an existing sequence before editing. No when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as pr_sequenceOps or pr_getSequenceState.

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