set_frame_duration

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not mention the live vs batch backend split, the save-back-to-file semantics, or whether durations on unselected frames are preserved. It adds the selector scope, which is modest value.

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 that states the verb, the unit (milliseconds), and the full set of target selectors with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the 'what' and the target scope but omits the batch/live mode distinction and save behavior that materially affect invocation. Since the schema carries that detail at 89% coverage, the definition is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 89%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema (frame, from/to, frames, tag, save, sprite, backend). The description's selector list duplicates that information rather than adding units, constraints, or interaction rules, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (sets) and resource (frame durations), and enumerates the five target selectors (one frame, range, list, tag, 'all'), which maps directly onto the schema's frame/from-to/frames/tag parameters. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent frame tools like add_frames, delete_frames, or move_frame, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 list of selectable targets implies the tool's reach, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as update_tag or set_sprite_properties, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is inferable only from the parameter enumeration.

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