create_subsequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but not what happens after creation: where the subsequence lands, whether the source sequence is modified, what occurs if no in/out points exist, or the effects of ignoreTrackTargeting. For a creation tool with side effects, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with zero filler. The verb is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning — 'from the in/out points of a sequence' is essential context rather than padding.

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?

The tool is simple (two params, both fully documented in schema), so the description is adequate for the basic operation and prerequisite. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the missing behavioral context — result placement, error conditions, and side effects — leaves an agent without enough information to confidently predict the outcome.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents both sequenceId and ignoreTrackTargeting. The description adds minimal extra meaning by identifying 'in/out points' as the substance of the operation, but it does not clarify how ignoreTrackTargeting affects the result beyond the schema's terse wording.

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 uses a specific verb ('creates') with a clear resource ('subsequence') and states the derivation source ('from the in/out points of a sequence'), so an agent understands the core operation. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling create_subclip, which likely produces a similar derived media item.

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 phrase 'from the in/out points of a sequence' implies a prerequisite — the source sequence must already have in/out points set — which is usable context for an agent deciding to call this tool. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over create_subclip or create_sequence, and no stated exclusions.

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