set_active_sequence

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails: it does not say what happens to the previously active sequence, whether a project must be open first, whether the sequence is loaded into the timeline panel or the source monitor, or whether the playhead/selection is reset. "In the timeline" is the only behavioral clue.

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 short sentence with no padding, and the key verb is front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that little information is conveyed, bordering on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 one-parameter state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the state transition and prerequisites. Instead it gives six words, leaving the agent unable to predict side effects on the current active sequence or the return value.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a sequence name or ID sourced from get_sequences. The description adds no additional meaning about accepted formats, error behavior for unknown names, or name-vs-ID precedence, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a verb and resource ("Open a sequence"), but the name says "set_active" while the description says "open," leaving the exact effect ambiguous. It does not distinguish this from siblings like get_active_sequence, open_project, or open_in_source_monitor, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_active_sequence (read the current one) or open_in_source_monitor (open in the source monitor rather than the timeline). The phrase "in the timeline" hints at a scope distinction but never states the alternative or prerequisite explicitly.

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