set_frame_interpolation

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, repeatable operations. The description adds that only 'FrameSampling' is available and other modes are refused, which is useful behavioral context about constraints. However, it doesn't explain why other modes are refused or what happens to existing interpolation settings when a new one is applied.

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?

Two tightly focused sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the key constraint. Efficient and clear structure.

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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety profile, the description provides adequate coverage. The critical gap is the lack of connection to sibling tools like get_frame_interpolation_capabilities that would help an agent understand the broader workflow context. The nested object structure for interpolation is not elaborated beyond what the schema provides.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds constraint information about which enum values are accepted ('Only FrameSampling is available'), which is meaningful parameter insight beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain what 'layer_ids' should target or how interpolation interacts with specific layers.

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 specific action ('Choose temporal frame interpolation') and identifies the setting being manipulated. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from related siblings like get_frame_interpolation_capabilities or retime_layers, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific function versus related interpolation operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool 'get_frame_interpolation_capabilities' that clearly provides capability information, an agent would benefit from understanding that this tool sets the mode while the sibling queries capabilities. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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