black_souls_input_sequence

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that it injects inputs, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as execution order guarantees, whether actions are atomic, or any side effects beyond injection.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no fluff and earns its place by immediately informing the agent of the tool's key capability and constraints.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (array of mixed objects, 2 parameters, sibling tools) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core function. Minor omission: does not explicitly state that steps are executed sequentially, but this is implied by 'ordered 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds high-level meaning ('allowlisted inputs and frame waits') but does not detail the specific actions (already in schema enums) or explain parameters like 'repeat' or 'timeout_ms'. The description provides context but not full clarity for all parameters.

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 it injects up to 200 allowlisted inputs and frame waits as an ordered sequence. It uses specific verbs ('inject') and resources ('allowlisted inputs', 'frame waits'), and the name 'input_sequence' distinguishes it from single-input tools like black_souls_input.

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 implies usage when multiple sequential inputs are needed, up to 200. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tool names (black_souls_input, black_souls_wait) provide clear context for differentiation.

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