blend-ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sets the current frame and returns a confirmation, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it affects playback or keyframes, error conditions (e.g., invalid frame numbers), or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by brief but informative Arg and Return sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action and parameter meaning. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., effects on animation state).

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 meaningful context for the single parameter: 'frame: Frame number to set as current.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type (integer). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining what the frame represents, though it doesn't specify valid ranges or units.

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 purpose: 'Set the current frame in the timeline.' It specifies the verb ('Set') and resource ('current frame'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_frame_range' or 'insert_keyframe', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active timeline or animation), exclusions, or related tools like 'set_frame_range' for adjusting the overall timeline bounds. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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