Opentoonz Set Scene Settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the scene file's XML is patched directly (because the scripting API lacks setters), that changes persist through later edits, and that partial updates are allowed (omitted width/height keep their value). It stops short of stating permission requirements, error behavior, or whether the change is reversible.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the effect before the implementation detail. The example and the direct-XML note both earn their place; only minor polish is missing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description instead covers the mutation's mechanics and follow-up actions (re-render, redraw art) that an agent genuinely needs. The only real gap is the unexplained required `workspace`/`scene` parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it explains the semantics of `width` and `height` (independently settable, omitted keeps value) and covers `fps` implicitly. But the required `workspace` and `scene` parameters are never mentioned, leaving two of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Change') and resource ('a scene's camera resolution and/or frame rate') with a concrete example (1080p -> 720p). An agent can immediately distinguish it from the render/workspace/cell siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the effect ('re-render after changing this, and draw new art at the new size'), which tells the agent the downstream implications. However, no alternatives or when-not conditions are named, so the agent must infer that this is the way to change resolution/fps rather than, say, a render or scene_new tool.

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