close_sequence

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

No annotations (readOnly, destructive, etc.) were supplied, and the description provides no behavioral details—such as whether the operation is irreversible, whether it flushes unsaved work, prompts for confirmation, or raises an error if a sequence is not open. Annotation contradiction: none.

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?

One single sentence, no waste, but the phrase 'expanded operation' is filler and no bullet-like structure or technical terms are used. The entry is short, but the lack of concrete technical content and stream references makes it more diffuse than helpful.

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?

No mention of return values, errors, effect on the Premiere project, required state (open/closed), or side effects. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no context about which sequence or which type the sequence is. Given that zero parameters are available, the object parameter remains unspecified. It is the bare minimum A function marked by the existence of many siblings but no differentiation.

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 accepts a single object with arbitrary properties in the input schema; with 0 parameters, the description is not necessary. However, the schema does not enforce required keys or value types, and the property name in the statement is simply 'string'; effectively the schema says any JS object with arbitrary string keys. No parameter meaning is conveyed by the description, but with zero parameters that is acceptable.

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?

Description 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: close sequence' essentially restates the tool name; it does not specify what 'closing' does (e.g., closes an open sequence project, a timeline, or selected clips), what the end state is, or which sibling operations it competes with.

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 contextual information on when to use this function vs alternatives; there is no guidance for choosing close_sequence over create_sequence, delete_sequence, or get_sequence_settings. The description is a bare verb phrase with no decision factors.

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