set_frame_range

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this operation is safe and repeatable. The description adds that it sets the frame range and/or current frame, which clarifies scope but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict them; it simply confirms the setting behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action, followed by a concise parameter list. There is no wasted text, though the Args section slightly duplicates the schema descriptions. It is appropriately sized.

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?

With annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the schema fully documenting parameters, the description is adequate for a simple setter tool. However, it lacks details on what happens if only some parameters are provided (e.g., setting just current leaves range unchanged) and doesn't explain the effect on the timeline state. No output schema exists, so return value explanation isn't needed, but completeness is only minimal.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema with descriptions like 'last frame number.' The description repeats these parameter explanations without adding new semantics or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already covers the parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: set the timeline frame range and/or current frame. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_keyframe or set_knob, which operate on different objects. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from any similar sibling because none directly overlap, so it's clear but not exceptional.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the purpose—setting timeline frame range or current frame—but no conditions or exclusions are provided. Since no direct sibling overlap exists, implied usage is minimally adequate.

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