fusion_set_current_frame_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose the behavioral trait of 'undo protection', which is positive. However, it fails to mention other relevant behaviors such as whether setting the current frame triggers a render, requires the composition to be open, or has any side effects on playback. The description partially fulfills the transparency need but is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly improved by including the parameter context without becoming verbose. Overall, it is efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the tool's simple nature (set current frame), the description covers the basic action and mentions undo protection. However, it lacks completeness: no return value description, no mention of applicable composition state, and no integration with sibling tools. With no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context to ensure correct usage.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the single 'frame' parameter. It does not specify the unit (e.g., 0-based, integer), range, or format. Since there is only one parameter, the description should clarify its semantics but fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Set the active composition current frame', specifying a specific verb (set) and resource (current frame of active composition). It also mentions 'undo protection', adding a useful detail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fusion_get_current_frame_tool (get vs set) and fusion_set_keyframe_tool (set keyframe vs set current frame).

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. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it could state that this tool is for moving the playhead, while fusion_set_keyframe_tool is for setting animation keyframes. Lacking such context, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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