set_work_area

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a mutation ('sets') but doesn't disclose any behavioral nuances such as whether this affects the timeline, whether it requires a sequence to be open, or if it clears previous settings. There is no mention of potential side effects or validation (e.g., inPoint must be less than outPoint). The description is extremely terse.

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 one short, clear sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. There is no fluff, but it is so minimal that it could be considered under-specified, which is why it doesn't reach 5. It earns its place but doesn't add extra helpful structure.

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?

The tool is a setter operation with no annotations and no output schema. Given the complexity (3 required params), the description should provide more context about the effect, any constraints (e.g., in/out ordering), and relation to sequence state. It is not complete enough for a mutation tool that potentially affects timeline data.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage): sequenceId, inPoint, outPoint. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't compensate or enhance.

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 'Sets the work area in/out points for a sequence' clearly states the action (sets) and the target resource (work area in/out points for a sequence). It distinguishes from siblings like 'clear_sequence_in_out' and 'set_sequence_in_out_points' by focusing on work area specifically, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'set_sequence_in_out_points' which could be confused. The purpose is clear but not fully distinguishing from similar sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify how this differs from 'set_sequence_in_out_points' or 'clear_sequence_in_out', nor does it mention any prerequisites like needing an active sequence. The description is minimal and provides no context for selection.

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