propagate_frame_to_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Propagate' implies mutation but the description does not disclose whether target cels are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or how the overwrite parameter affects behavior. The destructive implications are left entirely to inference.

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?

One short sentence with no waste, but it sits at the edge of under-specification. It communicates the core action yet adds no decision-useful detail, so brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than being earned by rich content.

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 mutation tool affecting a frame range with an overwrite default, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, a single sentence is inadequate. An agent has no sense of side effects, prerequisites, or what the result will look like.

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 compensate for the five undocumented parameters. It mentions none of them — filename, source_frame, start_frame, end_frame, and overwrite all go unexplained, and the default of overwrite=true is never contextualized.

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?

States a specific verb (propagate), a resource (source-frame cels), and a destination (frame range). The action and target are clear enough to distinguish from siblings like duplicate_frame_range, though 'propagate' could still be confused with the sibling propagate_cels.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no exclusions. Siblings like propagate_cels, duplicate_frame_range, and copy_cel overlap in intent, yet nothing tells an agent when this tool is preferred over them.

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