set_timing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals meaningful behaviors: 0 means 'as is', sectional slow motion excludes particles, and global_slow lengthens the scene while slowing everything. This goes well beyond a generic mutation statement.

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 compact and front-loads the English summary, then provides detailed Korean explanation. There is some bilingual duplication, but each sentence adds behavioral or usage information, and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers the core timing behaviors and the important distinction between sectional and global slow motion. However, for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, it leaves frame_start/frame_end relationship, slow_factor, and default fps behavior mostly implicit rather than fully specified.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of frame range, fps, 0-as-is, slow_from/slow_to behavior, and global_slow scaling with a concrete example (0.25 = 4x slower). It omits slow_factor by name, but the default is present in the schema and is inferable from the slow-motion explanation.

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 states concrete aspects the tool covers: frame range, fps, and slow motion, which expands the bare name set_timing. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but no listed sibling covers timing, so the identity is reasonably clear.

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 parameter-level usage guidance by distinguishing sectional slow motion (slow_from to slow_to, affecting only rigid bodies, smoke, and water, excluding particles) from global_slow (affecting the entire scene including particles, at the cost of longer duration). It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X' for sibling tools, but no timing-specific sibling exists.

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