animation_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that going to a frame makes subsequent edits apply to that frame, but it omits whether setting fps or frame range affects existing drawings, whether the operation is undoable, and what permissions or setup are required.

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 covering purpose and key parameters without waste. The parentheticals add needed clarification, though the sentence is slightly dense.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. It explains the purpose and broad parameter meanings but omits behavioral details like side effects, undoability, and constraints, which leaves meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 must clarify the four parameters. It maps each one reasonably: fps is frame rate, start..end is frame range, and frame is the navigation target. However, it does not add constraints such as valid fps values, start/end ordering, or frame bounds.

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 ('Set') and resources ('frame rate, frame range, and/or go to frame'), making the tool's intended action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as animation_info or keyframe, but the setter semantics are evident.

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 that the parameters can be combined ('and/or') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no instructions on when to use animation_info instead. It leaves usage decisions to inference.

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