set_target_frame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important behavioral trait that this call gates which frames subsequent operations may modify. However, it omits whether it replaces or appends to the existing target set, whether prior targets are cleared, and what happens if a frame id is invalid or nonexistent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource, and scope qualifier all appear immediately. Nothing in it is redundant with the name.

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?

This is a state-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two entirely undocumented parameters. The one-line description leaves out replacement-vs-merge semantics, error behavior, and how the set interacts with the sibling target-frame tools, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and neither frameId nor frameIds has a description in the schema. The description's 'frame(s)' hints at the singular/plural pair, but it never explains whether the two parameters are alternatives, whether supplying frameIds overrides frameId, or whether they merge with the existing target set.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Sets') with a specific resource ('target frame(s)') and adds the distinguishing semantics that these frames are the ones 'the agent is allowed to modify'. That scope detail separates it from generic selection tools, though it never names the obvious siblings get_target_frames or clear_target_frames.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_target_frames (to read the current set), clear_target_frames (to reset it), or set_selections/set_focus (to change what is selected). The 'allowed to modify' phrasing only weakly implies the tool must be called before mutating frames.

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