set_work_area

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core action ('sets the work area in/out points') without mentioning any side effects, constraints, reversibility, or impact on the timeline. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what happens when the tool is invoked.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Sets the work area in/out points') and the target ('for a sequence'). This is appropriately concise for a simple setter tool.

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 description is extremely minimal and does not explain the work area concept, its relationship to sequence in/out points, or any preconditions (e.g., open sequence, valid time ranges). For an agent to correctly choose this tool among many siblings, the lack of context is a notable gap.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters clearly (sequenceId, inPoint, outPoint) with 100% coverage, and the description adds no further parameter details or syntax guidance. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the documentation.

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 clearly states the tool sets work area in/out points for a sequence, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate between the work area and the sequence in/out points (a sibling tool exists, set_sequence_in_out_points), which could cause confusion for an agent deciding between them.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_sequence_in_out_points or clear_sequence_in_out. It doesn't state prerequisites, such as needing an active sequence, or any conditions for use.

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