auto_reframe_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions AI-powered motion tracking but does not clarify whether the original sequence is modified or a new sequence is created (the optional newName parameter suggests a copy, but this is not stated). There is no mention of permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens to the original. The description is too shallow to convey the operational behavior of the tool.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the essential action. There is no redundant phrasing or filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, AI operation, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the output format, whether the operation is destructive, what the motionPreset options imply, or any prerequisites (e.g., valid sequence ID). The lack of an output schema makes the description's silence on return values especially problematic. The tool requires richer context for an agent to invoke 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 100%, so every parameter is documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what is already in the schema. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not enrich the meaning of any parameter, but it does not need to because the schema already provides adequate descriptions.

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 the action (reframes a sequence), the target resource (sequence), and the specific purpose (new aspect ratio) with the method (AI-powered motion tracking). This distinguishes it from the many other sequence-related tools in the sibling list. The verb and object are explicit, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without any context on appropriate scenarios or what to check before invoking. There is no mention of alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-support information.

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