Set frame

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

Annotations already declare the behavioral profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), so the safety story is covered and consistent with 'move the playhead'. The description adds useful scope context — it acts on the *active* composition — but says nothing about out-of-range frames, clamping, or whether a paused state is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and target are stated before any qualifiers. Nothing extraneous to trim.

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 one-parameter state-setting tool with no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. It could mention frame-range behavior or whether the composition must be open, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so 'Target frame number' is already in the schema. The description adds no format, range, or unit guidance beyond that, making this the baseline 3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and object ('Move the playhead') plus the scope ('active composition') and the value being set ('a frame'). An agent immediately knows this is playhead navigation, distinct from mutation siblings like cavalry_set_keyframes. It loses the top mark only because it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the neighboring cavalry_playback tool.

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 its usage (jump the playhead to a specific frame) but offers no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing against alternatives such as cavalry_playback. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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