set_frame

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

The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond any annotation (which are absent): input validation (accepts int/float, rejects bool/NaN/inf), sub-frame preservation, exception handling (degrading to error dict), and undo behavior (NO_UNDO_COMMANDS with batch dispatcher closing undo segments). This is thorough for a tool with no annotations.

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 dense yet efficient, with each sentence providing unique information: purpose, parameter validation, error behavior, and undo mechanics. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it ideal for agent consumption.

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?

While the description thoroughly covers validation, error handling, and undo behavior, it omits the return value (no output schema exists) and does not explain the 'ctx' parameter. These gaps leave an agent uncertain about the operation's result and the required context, preventing fully safe invocation.

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 description adds significant meaning to the 'frame' parameter, explaining accepted types and validation, which is essential since the schema declares it as string. However, the 'ctx' parameter is not explained at all, leaving its purpose and accepted values undocumented. With 0% schema coverage, this is only partial compensation.

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 function: setting the current frame in Houdini. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_frame and set_frame_range by explicitly focusing on the current frame, with additional context about runtime timeline writes and no-undo behavior.

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 context about runtime timeline writes and no-undo but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_frame_range or playbar_control. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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