set_sequence_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does well: it discloses that values are read back afterward, that unchanged but accepted fields are reported, and that frame size changes are allowed despite an earlier note. This goes well beyond a generic 'update' statement.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action, the second lists exactly what the tool does, and the final note corrects a potentially misleading past assumption. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 core behavior and the read-back verification mechanism are described, and the schema provides thorough parameter documentation. A small gap remains because the description does not specify the exact shape of the 'reports' return value, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 the schema already explaining width, height, frameRate, and pixelAspectRatio in detail. The description lists the same fields but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Updates sequence settings,' then names the exact fields affected: width, height, frameRate, and pixelAspectRatio. This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_sequence_settings and from the more granular setters such as set_sequence_frame_rate.

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 this is the tool to use when updating these sequence properties as a group, especially because it applies and then reads back the values to verify what Premiere accepted. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over the individual setters, or when not to use it.

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