set_sequence_in_out_points

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

With no annotations to declare safety or side effects, the description carries full responsibility but only says 'sets' without revealing behavior like partial updates, clearing behavior, playhead interaction, or errors. This leaves too much ambiguity for an operations 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, clear sentence that front-loads the primary verb and target, with no wasted words. It is concise while covering the essence of the tool.

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 simple setter with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what happens when only one point is provided, nor does it address sequence state requirements or relationship to related 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?

The schema already documents all 100% of parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, nor does it clarify interactions between inPoint and outPoint, so 3 is appropriate.

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 tool sets in and/or out points on a sequence timeline, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_sequence_in_out_points and clear_sequence_in_out by its action and target.

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 implies the tool is for setting in/out points on a sequence, but it never explicitly discusses when to choose this over alternatives such as set_source_in_out or set_item_in_out. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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