shift_frame_content

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavioral traits: it shifts all frame content, supports wrap-around, and uses defaults for optional params. However, it does not specify what happens to content exiting boundaries without wrap (clipping or deletion) or confirm that modification is destructive, leaving some behavioral 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. No filler or 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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the main operation, mentions the key parameter (wrap), and implies the tool modifies the frame. It lacks explicit details about return value or reversibility, but those are somewhat inferable. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward mutation tool.

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 provides 100% coverage with parameter descriptions, and the tool description adds context by explaining the overall purpose of dx/dy as offset and mentioning wrap. This adds meaning beyond the schema's individual descriptions, though the description does not elaborate on frameIndex's default behavior explicitly.

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 shifts all content on the current frame by an x/y offset. It specifies the resource (content on current frame), the action (shift), and the manner (by offset). The use case for animations is mentioned, distinguishing it from other tools like 'copy_region_to_frame' or 'fill_region'.

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 gives a usage hint ('useful for scrolling or movement animations') but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites. The agent would need to infer usage from the name.

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