set_sequence_resolution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it merely restates the operation. It gives no information about side effects, whether the active sequence must be selected, whether the operation mutates the project, or what happens if the sequence does not exist.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the phrase 'expanded operation' adds no actionable meaning and the description could have been 'Set sequence resolution.' There is no wasted length, but the one sentence lacks substance.

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-like tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this description is far too sparse. An agent cannot tell what input to provide, what the tool returns, or what preconditions must exist.

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?

The schema defines zero parameters but allows additional properties, so the agent has no structured guidance on how to specify a resolution. The description does not compensate by documenting expected fields such as width/height or a preset, leaving the invocation ambiguous.

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 is essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool name ('set sequence resolution') prefixed by the vague category 'Premiere Pro expanded operation.' It does not explain what resolution means in this context, what values are involved, or how this operation differs from sibling tools like set_sequence_settings or set_sequence_pixel_aspect_ratio.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of set_sequence_settings, set_sequence_pixel_aspect_ratio, or other sequence-related setters. The only usage cue is the verb 'set,' which leaves the agent to infer context.

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