set_cel_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: setting position, optional cel creation, and source frame copying. However, it does not mention error conditions, side effects, or required permissions, which would improve transparency.

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 concise with a purpose sentence followed by a structured parameter list. It is front-loaded with the action. However, listing parameter descriptions duplicates some schema info, but given 0% coverage, it is necessary.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics and core behavior. It lacks explicit mention of return values or error handling, but is mostly complete for its complexity level.

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%, so the description must explain all 7 parameters. It does this thoroughly: e.g., 'frame_index starting at 1', 'create the cel if it does not exist', 'optional frame to copy the cel image from'. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Set a cel's position in a specific layer and frame', which clearly states the tool's action and target resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like offset_cel_positions (relative movement) and tween_cel_positions (animation).

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 details each parameter with context (e.g., frame_index starting at 1, optional source frame), guiding proper use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or constraints.

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