set_time_range

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 explains that all parameters are optional and only modified if specified, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects (e.g., whether changes affect existing animations). The return format is described but without output schema, leaving some ambiguity.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, parameter details, returns, examples) and front-loaded key information. It is appropriately sized, though the examples could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and usage examples. However, it could improve by addressing potential errors or constraints (e.g., valid frame ranges). The lack of output schema is mitigated by describing the return dict.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by clearly explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., start_frame as animation start frame), optional nature, and practical examples (e.g., fps common values like '24' for film). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('设置' meaning 'set') and resources ('时间/帧范围参数' meaning 'time/frame range parameters'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_keyframe or set_object_property by focusing on animation timing parameters rather than keyframes or object properties.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to set animation frame ranges, current frame position, and frame rate) and includes practical examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, such as set_keyframe for animation keyframes.

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