set_sequence_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses that settings are applied, read back for verification, and that any accepted-but-unchanged fields are reported. It also directly addresses the frame size mutation constraint. The DEV deliberately corrected prior codebase misinformation, showing proactive transparency.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: one for action, one for verification behavior, one for correcting a misconception. Essential information is front-loaded. No filler words.

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 setter with a nested settings object and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior including edge-case handling (unaccepted values). It omits potential edge cases like type conversion behavior or whether parent sequences need to be open, but given the available context and sibling landscape, this is quite complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed types and format examples (e.g., N:M notation for pixelAspectRatio), which carries the parameter documentation. The description adds marginal value by noting read-back validation affects parameters, and the frame-size variation note implies width/height are mutable together. Description goes beyond mere restating.

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 opens with 'Updates sequence settings,' a clear verb+resource construct. It enumerates specific fields (width, height, frameRate, pixelAspectRatio) and describes the apply-readback-report lifecycle, which distinguishes it from focused siblings like set_sequence_frame_rate. The clarification about frame size being changeable adds precision.

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?

Clear context is given for what the tool does and its verification behavior, but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives. Given siblings like set_sequence_frame_rate and set_sequence_resolution exist, explicit differentiation would earn a 5. The 'contrary to an earlier note' phrase hints at correcting prior guidance, which is useful context.

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