Diff Sequence Snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds an explicit guarantee that it never reads or changes Premiere and is local-only, which goes beyond the annotation hints and gives the agent confidence about side effects. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the key output categories. It contains no filler, repetition, or tangential information, making it both concise and information-dense.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's purpose: it identifies inputs (two sequence snapshots), sources, output categories (change types, frame deltas, per-track counts, EDL-like timecode lines), and side-effect behavior (local-only, no Premiere reads/writes). Combined with a fully described input schema and output schema, an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds some context by explaining that snapshots come from get_sequence_structure or inspect_sequence_structure_uxp and by using the terms 'Earlier' and 'Later' to clarify before/after ordering, but it does not add substantial parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's specific verb ('Diff two sequence snapshots') and resource (sequence snapshots), and enumerates the exact kinds of changes it detects (added, removed, moved, trimmed, retimed, enabled, renamed). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing the snapshot sources (get_sequence_structure / inspect_sequence_structure_uxp) and noting it is local-only.

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?

The description provides practical context by stating it operates on snapshots from get_sequence_structure or inspect_sequence_structure_uxp and that it is local-only, never reading or changing Premiere. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this when...', but the intended workflow is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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