sequence.set_speed

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds only 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' and a generic requirements note, neither of which explains what actually changes in the scene, whether a transaction is required, or what side effects occur.

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 short, but its sentences are boilerplate: they restate the command name and generic policy requirements rather than conveying tool-specific information. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as the limited text does not earn its place.

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 tool with 9 parameters, 5 required, and a mutating effect on scene state, the description is far too incomplete. It omits the core operation, parameter semantics, and any usage conditions, leaving an agent without the information needed to call it correctly despite the presence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is only 33%, with core parameters like name, factor, source, channel, interpolate, and _expectedSceneRevision lacking descriptions in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any of these parameters or how they relate to the operation, leaving an agent to guess the meaning of critical fields like 'source' and 'channel'.

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 merely restates the command name ('sequence.set_speed') and adds generic harness boilerplate; it never states what the tool actually does, such as setting the playback speed factor of a sequence strip. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like blender_sequence_set_volume or blender_sequence_trim.

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, nor any prerequisites like needing an existing sequence, transaction, or valid scene state. The only usage-related text is the generic note that 'per-request argument checks and session policy still apply', which does not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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