create_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the sequence is created and opened, and it provides default dimensions/fps, but it omits prerequisites such as whether a project must be open, name uniqueness/conflict behavior, what 'open' changes in application state, and how presetPath interacts with defaults.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by useful format defaults. Every sentence contributes information without filler.

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/creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description provides useful default-format context but leaves important gaps: required project state, where the sequence is created, naming constraints, error behavior, and presetPath interaction.

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 only 40%, with fps and presetPath documented in the schema but name, width, and height undocumented. The description usefully explains the default 1920x1080 25 fps and gives a vertical-format example, partially compensating for the low coverage. It still does not explain the required name parameter or the interaction between presetPath and the default width/height/fps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a sequence and open it.' It also adds default format details, making the operation concrete. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling creation tools such as create_sequence_from_clips, clone_sequence, or import_sequences.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool creates a new blank sequence with default settings, and width/height/fps can be set for alternate formats. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_sequence_from_clips, clone_sequence, or import_sequences.

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