add_sequence_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the Director dependency, which is valuable, but says nothing about whether the change persists to disk, whether it is undoable (an undo/redo sibling exists), or what happens on failure. Implied mutation via "Add" is the only safety signal.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, the prerequisite follows immediately, and the arg list is compact. The RST double-backtick markup is slightly noisy for a machine reader but costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are documented. The remaining gap is failure/edge behavior (e.g., adding a non-Director node without a Director present, or referencing a nonexistent sequence name).

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 0% and the schema declares no enums, so the description must compensate — and it does. It documents all three parameters and supplies the full allowed value set for node_type (Director, Event, AzEntity, Component, CVar, Material, Group, Layer, Comment), which the schema itself lacks.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Add a node to a Track View sequence"), which is clearly distinguishable from the anim-graph node siblings like add_anim_graph_node. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to route against, but the "Track View sequence" scope does the disambiguation work.

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 second sentence gives a concrete prerequisite: add a Director node first because most other node types require one present. That is real when-to-use guidance an agent needs for call ordering. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it isn't a 5.

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