set_frame

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions the index base, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects on the editing state, whether the action is undoable, or what happens if the index is out of range.

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 extremely concise—one sentence for purpose plus a small Args section. Every part is relevant and front-loaded. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 simple set action with two parameters, the description is adequate but lacks completeness. It does not explain what 'active frame' means in the context of Aseprite, nor does it specify behavior for invalid indices or how the tool interacts with other state. However, given the tool's simplicity, it meets minimal completeness.

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% coverage (no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value: 'Name of the Aseprite file to modify' merely restates the parameter title, and 'Frame index starting at 1' adds the base but no further meaning. The description does not explain the format or constraints beyond what is obvious from the 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 clearly states the action: 'Set the active frame by index (1-based).' It uses a specific verb (set) and resource (active frame), and the 1-based index detail distinguishes it from tools that might use 0-based indices. Among siblings, it is clearly differentiated from add_frame, copy_frame, etc.

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 provided on when to use set_frame versus alternatives like add_frame, copy_frame, or duplicate_frame_range. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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