set_override_frame_rate

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 and largely drops it. It does not say whether this mutates stored project metadata permanently, whether it applies retroactively to existing clips/sequences referencing the item, whether it is reversible, or what error occurs if the item is already in a sequence.

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 tight sentence with the key qualifier ('interpreted') front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-sized for a mutation tool with no annotations to back it up.

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 state-changing operation with no annotations, no output schema and no documented side effects or preconditions, the description is too thin. An agent knows what field it touches but not what happens as a result or what constraints apply to the target item.

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%, including an example value list for frameRate, so the parameters are already well documented structurally. The description adds no additional meaning (e.g. that frameRate is a number in fps, or what 'nodeId' must reference beyond 'project item'), 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Override'), a specific resource ('interpreted frame rate') and its scope ('a project item'), which is far more precise than the bare tool name. It does not, however, contrast itself with neighbors such as set_override_pixel_aspect_ratio or set_sequence_settings, so an agent must infer that distinction itself.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. Usage is only implied by the word 'interpreted', which suggests the tool is for correcting a wrongly detected source frame rate rather than changing playback speed (which would be set_clip_speed). That inference is left entirely to the agent.

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