set_footage_interpretation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Sets' and lists the fields, but does not explain whether unspecified settings are preserved or reset, whether values must fall within a valid range, whether changes are reversible, or what happens when called with only the required projectItemId.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes: the action, the resource type, the specific settings, and the target scope.

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 simple setter with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context around the effect on existing interpretation settings, which would help an agent reason about side effects when 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond repeating the field names; it does not clarify units, accepted ranges, or how frameRate and pixelAspectRatio relate to each other.

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 uses the specific verb 'Sets' and clearly identifies the resource as 'footage interpretation settings' for 'a project item', naming the two fields involved. It is distinct from the read counterpart `get_footage_interpretation`, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related sibling tools like `set_override_frame_rate`, `set_override_pixel_aspect_ratio`, or `set_sequence_frame_rate`. The description implies a context only through the phrase 'for a project item', but does not state exclusions or preferences.

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