sequence.add

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

With annotations present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds no behavioral context. It does not describe side effects, return values, or any operational details. The mention of 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' is not a behavioral disclosure and adds no value. The description remains uninformative about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 extremely short but is under-specification rather than concise. The single sentence restates the name and gives meta-information, providing no substantive information about the tool. It is not a well-structured, efficient description; it is a placeholder.

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 complex, with 14 parameters, an output schema, and a domain-specific purpose (Blender sequence editing). The description is completely inadequate, leaving an agent with no understanding of the tool's function, parameter constraints, or expected behavior. Correct invocation would be nearly impossible based on this description alone.

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 has 14 parameters with only 21% description coverage, leaving many core parameters (e.g., 'name', 'channel', 'type', 'frameStart') undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain any parameter semantics or relationships, and fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. It adds no value beyond the field names.

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 only states 'PartMe Blender Harness command `sequence.add`' and then provides metadata about risk and maturity. It does not specify what the tool does, such as adding a sequence to the VSE. This is essentially a restatement of the name with no functional description, making it a tautology.

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. It mentions that 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply', which are requirement statements but not usage direction. No context is given about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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