set_sequence_frame_rate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: every key, section and range is migrated so timing is preserved (nothing moves), and it defines the exact rate convention ('one tick per frame, as create_level_sequence sets them'). It stops short of stating prerequisites (sequence must exist / be open) or what 'destructive' concretely implies, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the alternative, then the return shape. Every clause carries information; the return description is slightly dense but justified because no output schema exists.

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 two-param mutation with no output schema, the description supplies both the semantic effect (rate migration with timing preserved) and the exact return object, leaving no gap an agent would need before calling it.

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 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the NTSC (23.976/29.97/59.94 -> N*1000/1001) rule. The description adds only the tick-resolution concept, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented 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?

States a precise verb (Change) and resource (frame rate of a Level Sequence) and clarifies it sets BOTH tick resolution and display rate, which is exactly the axis that separates it from set_sequence_display_rate. An agent can place this against its siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the alternative case: 'To change only the display rate, use set_sequence_display_rate,' while the rest of the sentence defines the condition for choosing this tool. Both the when-this and when-other are stated, not inferred.

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