auto_reframe_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'using AI-powered motion tracking' and doesn't state whether the original sequence is modified or a new one is created, what side effects occur, or any permission requirements. The 'newName' parameter hints at creating a new sequence, but this is not explicitly described.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without redundancy or filler, achieving high conciseness and good 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 description is minimal and, despite the schema covering all parameters, it fails to provide crucial context about the tool's behavior, such as whether it creates a new sequence (implied by newName) or modifies the original, or what the output/result is. With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves several important gaps for an agent.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'reframes to a new aspect ratio', which aligns with numerator/denominator. It doesn't explain optional parameters like newName or motionPreset, but the schema already handles this, so the baseline of 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 action ('Automatically reframes'), the resource ('a sequence'), and the specific goal ('to a new aspect ratio'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_sequence_resolution or crop_clip, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 use when a sequence needs to be reframed to a different aspect ratio, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, any prerequisites, or exclusions. It provides clear context but no explicit when-to-use/which-alternative framework.

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