animation.set_frame_range

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), so the description must clarify that this is a mutating operation that changes the animation frame range. It does not mention any side effects, what state is modified, or any required context. The 'Risk: standard' line is not behavioral disclosure. No contradiction, but no added 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 very short (two sentences), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The content is mostly boilerplate about risk and requirements, which does not earn its place. No front-loaded functional explanation.

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 6 parameters, including required 'start' and 'end', the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, what the parameters mean, or what the output represents (though an output schema exists, it is not enough without a functional description). An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the description.

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 description provides zero information about the parameters 'start' and 'end' (which are likely the core inputs). Schema coverage is 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. An agent has no idea what values to pass or what units/format are expected.

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 only identifies the command name 'animation.set_frame_range' and calls it a 'PartMe Blender Harness command'. It does not state what the tool does, such as setting the start and end frames of an animation. This is essentially a tautology, restating the title without adding functional meaning.

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 mentions 'Requirements: Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_playback_set_frame or other animation tools. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent cannot decide when to call it.

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