tracks_select_frames

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not say whether the existing selection is replaced or extended, whether the change is undoable, or what happens if a track name in the list does not exist — all material for a destructive state change.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is not the problem; the missing detail belongs in the other dimensions, not in added padding here.

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 destructive, three-required-parameter selection tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, one sentence is far short of what the agent needs to call it confidently. Selection-replacement semantics and parameter formats are the key gaps.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for all three required parameters and fails to discharge it. It never explains that 'tracks' is a list of track identifiers/names, nor that 'first'/'last' are inclusive frame bounds of the interval — the mapping to 'interval' is only loosely hinted.

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 concrete verb ('Set') and resource ('native track/frame selection'), which is enough to know it establishes a selection state rather than editing content. The qualifier 'real native' is jargon and the description never distinguishes it from the nearby selection_set or timeline_set_range siblings.

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?

It lists downstream use cases ('interval edits, mirroring or physics') which implies when the tool is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use rule, no prerequisite that tracks must already exist, and no named alternative. An agent must infer the call ordering itself.

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