Diff Sequence Snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: 'Local-only; never reads or changes Premiere' clarifies this is a pure offline computation requiring no live connection, and 'frame deltas, per-track counts, EDL-like timecode lines' describes the nature of the result.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and input sourcing, then the behavioral constraint. The enumerated change categories are substantive rather than filler, so no sentence is wasted.

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 tool with a deep nested input schema, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies the essentials: input source, computation scope, and local-only behavior. Return-value details are rightly omitted because an output schema exists, so nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents before/after/frame_rate/tolerance_frames in detail. The description confirms snapshot inputs leverage frame_rate defaults ('defaults to the snapshot frame rate or 30') but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

Specific verb (diff) plus resource (two sequence snapshots), and it names the exact source tools for the inputs (get_sequence_structure, inspect_sequence_structure_uxp). It enumerates the change categories produced (added, removed, moved, trimmed, retimed, enabled, renamed) and the output forms, so an agent can distinguish it from unrelated timeline tools without opening the schema.

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?

It implies the workflow by stating the snapshots come from get_sequence_structure or inspect_sequence_structure_uxp, which guides input acquisition. However, it never states when to reach for this versus alternatives (e.g., compare_cmx3600_edls) or any preconditions such as snapshots having been captured first, leaving the when-to-use decision to inference.

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