set_sequence_in_out_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing points, triggers a timeline refresh, or requires exclusive access). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 short sentence, which is efficient. However, it sacrifices informative content for brevity. It could include more detail without being overly 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (likely void), prerequisites (e.g., open sequence), or constraints (e.g., in_seconds < out_seconds). A more complete description would cover these aspects.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions ('In-point in seconds', 'Out-point in seconds'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or context, such as valid ranges or ordering constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 the sequence in and out points'. It specifies the resource (sequence) and hints at usage ('for export range, etc.'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_item_in_out or clear_sequence_in_out, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks instructions on prerequisites (e.g., active sequence) or when not to use it (e.g., if sequence is locked). There is no mention of complementary tools like get_sequence_in_out_points or clear_sequence_in_out.

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