set_sequence_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that values are read back after the write and that fields silently accepted-but-not-changed are reported, plus the frame-size changeability quirk. Missing are permission/auth requirements and whether unspecified settings are preserved, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the readback behavior, then the correcting caveat. Nothing is padded, though the reference to "an earlier note in this codebase" is context the calling agent cannot act on.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains the write, the verification readback, and the partial-failure reporting. It omits prerequisites (active/open sequence) and rollback behavior, which a silent-partial-success operation would ideally mention.

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%, so the nested settings schema already documents width, height, frameRate, and pixelAspectRatio with types and examples. The description restates those same field names without adding syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Updates sequence settings") and enumerates the exact fields it applies (width, height, frameRate, pixelAspectRatio), so the agent knows precisely what gets mutated. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the more granular siblings set_sequence_frame_rate, set_sequence_resolution, and set_sequence_pixel_aspect_ratio, which cover overlapping ground.

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?

Usage is implied by the field list, and the closing caveat ("Frame size CAN be changed after creation") is a genuine usage-relevant fact. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-the-narrower-sibling guidance, and no stated prerequisite such as needing the sequence active.

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