Set Document Settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a meaningful side-effect: FPS and frame range are mirrored onto the active render data. However, it does not mention validation behavior, whether invalid camera or take names error out, or any other mutation consequences beyond the mirroring.

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 two sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, the affected fields are listed compactly, and the key side-effect is stated separately without redundancy.

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 description together with the fully documented schema covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and the notable render-data mirroring side-effect. Missing details are limited to error behavior for invalid take or camera names and any return value, which is a minor gap for an optional-parameter settings update tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by grouping frame_start and frame_end as 'frame range' and by stating that both FPS and frame range are mirrored to active render data—a cross-parameter interaction not explicitly documented on the frame range parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource—'Update document-level settings'—and enumerates exactly which settings are affected: fps, frame range, current frame, active camera, active take. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling 'set' tools like set_transform or set_keyframe based on scope and field list.

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 use case via 'document-level settings' and the listed fields, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as set_params or when not to use it. An agent can infer the boundary from the field list, yet the guidance is not fully explicit.

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