timeline_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Set cookRate, realTime and/or jump to a frame,' which implies mutation of timeline state but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites (e.g., whether the timeline must be paused). It also omits any mention of error handling or return values, leaving behavior opaque for a mutating tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first line, then uses a bullet-like list for parameters. Each sentence earns its place, especially given the need to document 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage. While slightly verbose due to the detail and response_format explanations, it remains logical and skimmable 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?

The description fully explains the parameters and the primary action, which covers the core calling needs. However, it does not describe the response format or any potential errors, side effects on other timeline settings, or prerequisites (e.g., whether setting frame requires playback to be stopped). Since it is a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, a few more behavioral notes would strengthen completeness, but it is largely adequate.

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 provides explicit, schema-independent semantics for every parameter: cookRate (fps), realTime (enable/disable), frame (absolute jump), detail (full/summary/minimal with specifics), and response_format (yaml/json with token-cheap note). With schema coverage at 0%, this fully compensates and gives agents precise guidance on values and defaults, far exceeding 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 states a specific action: 'Set cookRate, realTime and/or jump to a frame.' It clearly identifies the resource (timeline) and the fields to modify, distinguishing it from siblings like timeline_get (retrieval) and timeline_play/pause (playback control). The inclusion of detail and response_format further clarifies its scope as a parameter setter rather than a playback controller.

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 implies usage by listing what it sets, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives. For instance, it does not say 'use this instead of timeline_play for setting playback mode' or provide conditions for choosing timeline_set over timeline_get. There is no exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the intended use from the action alone.

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