set_sequence_in_out_points

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (write operation) and not destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it implies mutation but doesn't disclose whether it overrides existing in/out points, requires an active sequence, or affects export settings. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose. It is appropriately sized with no unnecessary words, though it could include more useful details without being verbose.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., active sequence, timeline state), side effects, or return value. The absence of usage examples or behavioral details reduces completeness.

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%: both 'in_seconds' and 'out_seconds' have descriptive names and type definitions. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage notes for the parameters, remaining at the baseline level where schema already handles semantics.

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 action ('Set') and resource ('sequence in and out points'), and provides context ('for export range, etc.'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_sequence_in_out_points' (get vs set), 'clear_sequence_in_out' (clear vs set), and 'set_item_in_out' (item-level vs sequence-level).

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 gives a brief hint about use case ('for export range') but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_item_in_out' or 'set_source_in_out'. It does not list exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate.

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