Configure a sequence's playback settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it states the tool never sends playback keywords, does not touch selection/programmer/fader levels, refuses locked targets unless unlock is set (with relock attempted even on failure), warns when other executors share the sequence since settings apply to every referencing executor, and describes serialisation without isolation from other operators. Failure semantics (first failed write stops remaining changes, unknown values refuse the call rather than defaulting) are unusually well disclosed for a mutation tool.

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 purpose and the safety constraints are front-loaded, and most sentences carry real information, but the property enumeration is a long run-on list and the block of failure/verify/preview semantics is dense with no structural breaks. It is information-rich but overstuffed for a single paragraph, hurting scannability.

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 32-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what each group of settings does, that changes are read back and compared, what preview returns (from -> to), what the batch result shape looks like (one line per sequence, detail for full steps), and how failures and locks are handled. Nothing critical to correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: wrap_around is explained as only looping a chase when a trigger sits on the first cue, kill_protect/swap_protect are clarified as protection from Kill/Swap playback actions rather than editing, and rate_master is explained as cue timing running at BPM/60 with 60 BPM as 1:1, plus the rule that masters are linked by unique name. These are semantics the schema does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Set a sequence's playback settings by writing its properties') and immediately delineates the boundary against siblings by naming gma3_set_cue_trigger and gma3_set_cue_timing for cue-level work. An agent can tell this is the sequence-property writer, not the cue editor or executor config tool.

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 gives clear conditions for preview (read-only plan), verify (default true), unlock (required for locked targets), and batch form via 'sequences', and it redirects cue triggers/timing to the correct sibling tools. It does not, however, position itself against gma3_set_property or gma3_configure_executor, so an agent must infer those boundaries.

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