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 behavioral burden. It does not say whether the frame must exist, what happens on an invalid frame number, whether the change is undoable, or what the call returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 no filler or repetition beyond the unit restatement. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the failure modes and undo semantics that an agent would need to call this safely, but the small surface area limits the damage.

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%: both durationMs and frameNumber are documented in the schema, including units and exclusiveMinimum constraints. The description's only added detail, 'in milliseconds', duplicates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (sets) and resource (frame duration) with the unit, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling mutators like set_layer_opacity or set_pixel. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related frame tools such as create_frame or duplicate_frame, which may also influence timing.

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, nor any stated prerequisites. The description never mentions that the target frame must already exist or that duration is an editable property of an existing frame, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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