pr_sequenceOps

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not open-world, and not destructive. The description adds some action-level behavior, including that autoReframe creates a new aspect sequence, sceneEditDetection operates on selected clips, and createSubsequence uses in/out points, but it leaves prerequisites for rename/close and the effect of close unspecified.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the app, scope, and all five actions without filler. It is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause contributes useful action-level examples.

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?

This is a multiplexed tool with five distinct actions, eight parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema. The description names the actions but does not fully specify how to invoke rename, autoReframe, or sceneEditDetection correctly, nor does it explain selection/in-out prerequisites consistently.

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 only 13%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies autoReframe's aspect ratio via the 9:16 example and sceneEditDetection's marker/cut choice, but does not explain newName, numerator, denominator, sensitivity, or motionPreset, leaving several enum and numeric parameters ambiguous.

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 clearly states Premiere Pro sequence-level operations and enumerates five actions with brief examples, such as autoReframe for 9:16 Shorts and sceneEditDetection for markers/cuts. It does not, however, distinguish this multiplexed tool from siblings like pr_createSequence, pr_duplicateSequence, pr_razor, or pr_setInOut.

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 implied by the action names and examples, such as autoReframe for new aspect sequences and sceneEditDetection for selected clips. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use specific actions.

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