open_in_viewer

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates something safe-ish. The description adds no context about what actually changes (viewer/UI state only, not media or timeline data) or whether the current viewer contents are replaced.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficient: there was room to add the routing and parameter detail without bloat.

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, but for a 3-parameter action tool with zero annotation-derived detail on side effects, the description leaves the agent unable to decide between this and open_in_timeline or how to combine clip/project/sequence.

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% with three optional, nullable params (clip, project, sequence), and the description only names two of them. It never explains that all are optional, how project scopes the lookup, or what happens if both clip and sequence are supplied.

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 verb+resource is generic ('Show ... in the viewer') but it does at least name the two target object types (sequence, clip). It does not distinguish this from the sibling open_in_timeline, which sounds nearly identical, so an agent must guess which one opens where.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the closest alternative (open_in_timeline), nor of whether the project must already be open. The only implied usage is 'you have a sequence or clip reference'.

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