set_sequence_framerate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic action. It doesn't reveal whether the display rate change affects existing keyframes, whether the asset must be saved after, what valid fps ranges exist, or how 'display frame rate' relates to the sequence's time formatting. The term 'display' hints at a specific concept but is never explained.

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 action-first sentence with zero wasted words, structured as verb-object. It reads cleanly and front-loads the intent. Slightly more detail could have been added without harming conciseness—the terms 'display' and 'sequence' were both primed—so it misses a 5 but is well-crafted.

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 simple 2-parameter setter with 100% param coverage, the description is 'adequate but bare.' It correctly identifies the behavior—changing display rate, not render rate—which matters in the Unreal context, but doesn't explain the practical impact (e.g., time-smoothing, sub-frame interpolation) or why an agent would pick this over a similar tool.

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% (all parameters documented with meaningful descriptions), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond the schema: the tool text doesn't clarify valid fps ranges, the effect of changing the rate on existing animations, or how sequence_path is resolved.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource construction ('Set the ... frame rate of a sequence') that clearly identifies the action and target. The qualifier 'display' helpfully narrows the meaning from the render or playback rate. Slight ambiguity remains about what 'display' distinguishes against (render/playback), but the core purpose is clear.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings like set_playback_range, render_sequence, or get_sequence_info. A single sentence with zero context about when to reach for this vs. alternatives means an agent gets no disambiguation help.

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