set_frame_duration

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 states the tool modifies frame duration but does not mention whether the change is permanent, what happens if the frame_index is out of bounds, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks sufficient behavioral context for an agent.

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 short and to the point, with a structured 'Args:' list. It conveys the essential information without extraneous text. The only potential improvement would be to integrate the parameter descriptions more naturally, but it remains efficient.

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 simple modification tool, the description covers the core operation and parameter meanings. However, it lacks important context such as whether the operation is idempotent, what constitutes an invalid frame index, and the exact effect on the file. Given no output schema and simple parameters, a bit more detail would be expected.

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 must compensate. It provides one-line explanations for all three parameters: filename (file to modify), frame_index (starting at 1), and duration_ms (in milliseconds). While these explanations are necessary, they are basic and add limited meaning beyond the parameter names, resulting in a middling score.

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 clearly states the tool sets the duration of a frame in milliseconds, using a specific verb 'Set' and resource 'duration of a frame'. It implies modification of an existing file via the 'filename' parameter. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 'set_frame_duration_all', the singular 'a frame' and the 'frame_index' parameter differentiate it for single-frame 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no mention that this tool sets individual frame durations while 'set_frame_duration_all' sets a uniform duration for all frames. Additionally, no prerequisites or constraints are stated.

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