playback.set_frame

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minor context by noting 'Risk: read' and that per-request argument checks and session policy still apply, but it does not disclose meaningful behavioral traits beyond that.

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 short but under-specified; the opening clause restates the tool name/title rather than earning its place. It is not effective conciseness because it omits core functional 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?

Given the presence of five parameters, an output schema, and a likely sibling blender_playback_set, the description is incomplete: it fails to explain the tool's purpose, frame semantics, or relationship to alternatives. Annotations cover safety, but not the operational context an agent needs.

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 says nothing about the required 'frame' parameter, its units, range, or effect. With schema description coverage at 60%, the meaningful frame parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not compensate.

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 merely restates the command name as 'PartMe Blender Harness command `playback.set_frame`' without stating what the tool does. It offers risk, maturity, and policy metadata but no verb+resource explanation, so an agent cannot learn the tool's function from the description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling blender_playback_set. The 'Requirements' note about argument checks and session policy is not usage-selection guidance.

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