set_source_in_out

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only restates the mutation. It does not say that a clip must already be open in the Source Monitor, whether omitted inPoint/outPoint clears existing marks, or whether the change is scoped to the source clip only (not the timeline).

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves preconditions and parameter behavior unaddressed.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should state preconditions (active Source Monitor clip) and effects of omission. As written it is too thin to fully guide correct invocation amid many similarly named in/out-point tools.

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 100% (both inPoint and outPoint are documented in seconds), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about semantics such as what happens when an optional point is omitted (zero required parameters), which would have been a useful clarification beyond the schema.

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 ('Set') and resource ('in and out points on the clip') plus the scope qualifier 'in the Source Monitor', which separates it from timeline-oriented siblings like set_clip_in_out and set_sequence_in_out. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is contextual rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'in the Source Monitor' implies the usage context (a clip loaded in the Source Monitor), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of open_in_source_monitor as a prerequisite, and no routing to set_clip_in_out or set_project_item_in_out for other contexts.

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