cascadeur_set_frame

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that Cascadeur can clamp the requested frame and instructs the agent to read the returned frame. This is a non-obvious behavior that prevents the agent from assuming the requested frame was applied exactly. No contradiction with the destructiveHint=true annotation.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences totaling 14 words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds an essential behavioral caveat. There is no filler or redundant detail.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers the essential points: what it does, what to pass, and a critical behavioral warning about clamping. It could mention whether the operation is undoable or what happens if the scene has no timeline, but for a simple timeline-cursor setter the description is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter explanation. It does not explicitly explain that the 'frame' parameter is the target timeline position, although this is implied by 'Move the timeline cursor.' There is no discussion of units, valid ranges beyond schema min/max, or how clamping relates to the parameter. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter's self-evident name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Move the timeline cursor.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cascadeur_set_range or cascadeur_select_frames, which operate on ranges or selections. It could name an alternative explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.

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 implies usage through the tool name and action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_range or select_frames. It does provide a practical usage tip—'Read the returned frame because Cascadeur can clamp it'—which guides invocation, but this is not the same as context for choosing the tool.

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