set_source_in_out

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

No annotations are present, and the description discloses no behavioral traits such as mutability, which source it affects, or whether it requires an open source clip. This is fully opaque.

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 under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is a single fragment with no useful structure, similar to the 'Process' example.

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?

Even for a parameterless operation, the description fails to mention what state changes occur, any preconditions, or the relationship to the source monitor context. This is severely incomplete.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema has no defined fields, so the description is not required to document parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add for parameters.

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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: set source in out' essentially restates the tool name and adds the unhelpful filler phrase 'expanded operation'. It does not clearly indicate whether this sets in/out points in the source monitor or defines a specific verb+resource action distinct from siblings like set_item_in_out.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_item_in_out, set_sequence_in_out_points, or clear_item_in_out. The description provides no contextual cues for selection.

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