set_frame_range

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention whether the operation mutates state persistently, requires specific permissions, affects playback, or how it interacts with the timeline. The optional FPS is mentioned, but no details on units or side effects are provided.

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 sentence, highly concise and free of fluff. It front-loads the primary action and mentions the optional aspect inline. However, conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, which is penalized elsewhere.

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 tool with three parameters, including two required ones, the description is inadequate. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and any behavioral notes. Although an output schema exists, the description does not clarify what the tool returns or how the frame range is applied, making it insufficient for confident invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions 'scene frame range' and 'FPS' without detailing start, end, or fps meanings. No information on inclusivity, units, or valid ranges is given, leaving the agent with little beyond raw parameter names.

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 the tool sets the 'scene frame range' and optionally FPS, which is a specific resource and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_preview_range or set_frame, which could cause ambiguity. The verb-resource pairing is clear enough for most purposes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where set_preview_range or set_frame would be more appropriate, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or effects. The description leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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