clear_sequence_in_out

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation and does not disclose whether both in and out are cleared, whether the action is undoable, whether it can be a no-op, or what the resulting sequence state is.

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 very short and wastes little space, but the 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' prefix is filler that does not add substantive meaning. There is no redundancy, yet the phrasing feels templated rather than intentionally structured.

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 zero-parameter clear operation, the description is minimally viable: an agent can infer the action from the tool name and sibling context. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves behavioral and contextual gaps that make it only barely adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 names a specific action ('clear') and resource ('sequence in out'), and the tool name reinforces the intent. It is distinguishable from siblings like set_sequence_in_out_points, get_sequence_in_out_points, and clear_item_in_out, though the phrase 'expanded operation' adds little and the effect could be stated more explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus set_sequence_in_out_points or get_sequence_in_out_points. There is no mention of whether it targets the active sequence, how it interacts with existing in/out points, or when this clear should be preferred.

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