update_sequence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the list of mutable fields and says nothing beyond that: whether changes are persisted immediately, whether altering timecode/in-out points shifts existing track items, or whether omitted fields are left untouched is all undisclosed.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action (rename) followed by the secondary mutations. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 mutation tool with eight all-optional parameters and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves critical questions open: how to identify the target sequence and project, whether omitted parameters mean "no change" (partial update) or reset, and whether in_time/out_time are frame indices or timecodes. The presence of an output schema removes the need to document return values, but the input side remains under-specified.

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 carry the burden. It maps conceptually to six of the eight parameters (name, framerate, format, timecode_start, in_time, out_time) but leaves the two selector parameters, sequence and project, entirely unexplained, and gives no units or formats (frames vs. timecode string, framerate as float) for the numeric fields.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair ("Rename a sequence") plus the exact mutable attributes (frame rate, format, start timecode, in/out points). An agent immediately knows this is a sequence-level mutation, though nothing distinguishes it from the sibling update_track / update_track_item tools that mutate other timeline entities.

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 prerequisite (e.g. project must be open, sequence must exist), and no routing to siblings such as get_sequence for inspection or update_track for track-level changes. The agent must infer all of that from the tool name alone.

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