set_section_range

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=true), it discloses that the change runs in an undo transaction and saves the sequence, that keys are not moved or rescaled, that an unknown binding reads as zero tracks, and that range_set is false when the stored range differs from the request. That is meaningful mutation/side-effect context the annotations alone do not convey.

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 core action is front-loaded and every sentence carries a fact an agent needs (scope, undo/save, track_index behavior, frame rounding, range_set semantics, alternatives). It is dense, but the density is content, not padding; still slightly heavy for comfortable scanning.

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 tool with no formal output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the returned fields (applied vs requested frames, range_set, saved, save_error). Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: track_index selects from the binding's track order, frames are tick-resolution and rounded, and the range_set result signals divergence from the request. It adds beyond the schema without fully restating each parameter.

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 precise verb and resource with exact scope: it sets the frame range of the FIRST section of one track on a Level Sequence binding found by asset name under /Game. This is specific enough to separate it from siblings like set_sequence_playback_range and the other set_section_* tools.

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?

It routes the agent explicitly: read a section's range with get_section_info, and use set_sequence_playback_range for the whole sequence. It also discloses the constraint that no other section can be targeted, so the agent knows when this tool does not apply.

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