cavalry_set_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states the action is moving the playhead to a specific frame, but does not disclose whether this triggers any updates, requires the composition to be loaded, or side effects like layer refresh. The action appears safe but lacks fuller context.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the entire purpose with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does and the key parameter. Minor gaps like error behavior or bounds for the frame number are not critical for this straightforward command.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'frame' parameter (0-indexed integer). The description reinforces the parameter's purpose by linking it to 'specific frame number', which adds minimal extra meaning but complements the schema well. Since coverage is high, a 3-4 is baseline; the description is concise and non-redundant.

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 uses a specific verb 'Moves' and resource 'timeline playhead' to a specific frame number, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'cavalry_get_frame' which reads the current frame. The active composition scope is explicit, aiding precise tool selection.

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 when the agent needs to navigate the timeline, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings like 'cavalry_playback_control'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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