set_sequence_time_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral constraint ('end must be greater than start'), which guards invocation, but says nothing about mutation side effects such as whether changing the range during playback is valid, whether the change persists without a save, or what permissions are needed.

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?

Front-loaded single-sentence summary followed by a tight Args block; no filler. The per-argument lines largely mirror the schema keys, but they carry added meaning (units, ordering constraint), so they earn their place.

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 not be described. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations there are unfilled gaps: preconditions on sequence state, how the change interacts with playback, and whether it needs saving before it takes effect.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all three parameters are explained, with units added for start/end (seconds) and a cross-parameter validation rule that the bare number schema cannot express. Only 'name' lacks detail (path vs. display name).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set a Track View sequence's play time range') and pins the unit to seconds, which is enough to separate it from play_sequence, stop_sequence, and get_sequence. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (must the sequence exist? must playback be stopped?), and no routing to alternatives such as play_sequence or create_sequence. The agent is left to infer the workflow context entirely.

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