propagate_frame_to_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the overwrite behavior via the parameter but does not explicitly state that the tool modifies the file in-place or mention other side effects. The lack of annotations limits transparency, but the description gives basic behavioral context.

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, using a single-line summary followed by a clean docstring listing each parameter. No redundant information; every sentence is functional.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values or effects, but it does not. The description covers the basic action and parameters, but lacks detail on edge cases like when overwrite=False and cels exist. Given 5 parameters and no output schema, it is minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. The docstring provides concise explanations for all five parameters, including 1-based indexing for frames and the default for overwrite. This adds meaning beyond the schema's property titles.

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 action (Copy all layers) and the resource (from a source frame to a range of frames). It precisely distinguishes the tool from siblings like copy_frame and propagate_cels by specifying the destination as a range of frames.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exceptions, or context that would help an AI agent choose this tool over existing siblings.

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