blender_scene_set_frame_range

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 fails to mention whether setting the range clips or preserves existing keyframes, whether it affects playback or render range, or what the scene state should be. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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; every word contributes to stating the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool, though it is terse enough that slightly more context could be added without sacrificing clarity.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the basic action is adequately described. However, given both parameters are optional and no annotations exist, an agent is left guessing about defaults and behavioral implications, leaving clear but not severe 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 100%, with 'Start frame' and 'End frame' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3 for full coverage, though it doesn't clarify bounds semantics like inclusivity or ordering.

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 a specific verb ('Set') and specific resource ('animation frame range'), making the core action unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like blender_animation_goto_frame or blender_keyframe_insert, but the name and phrasing make the range-setting intent fairly clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_animation_goto_frame for single-frame navigation or blender_keyframe_insert for adding keys. It also doesn't explain what happens when only one of the two optional parameters is supplied, which is a significant usability gap.

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