create_subsequence

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but gives no information about side effects, prerequisites (e.g., what happens if no in/out points are set), whether the original sequence is modified, or what is returned. This gap is significant for a creation tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It contains no redundancy or filler. Every word adds meaning.

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 has only 2 parameters, both documented in the schema, and no output schema. The description gives the core purpose but lacks behavioral details like prerequisite conditions and side effects. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves some ambiguity about the subsequence creation process.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (sequenceId and ignoreTrackTargeting) documented. The description adds context about the 'in/out points' concept but does not elaborate on the parameters themselves. Since the schema already provides adequate parameter descriptions, 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 ('Creates a subsequence') and the source ('in/out points of a sequence'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_subclip (which creates a subclip from a clip) and create_sequence (which creates an empty sequence). The verb and resource are specific.

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 the tool should be used when a sequence has in/out points set and you want to create a subsequence from them. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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