起動中プロジェクトのオブジェクト編集(リアルタイム)

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that changes are applied in place and that frame_start must match, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or what happens if the object is not found. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 purpose and a key prerequisite without unnecessary filler. It is front-loaded with the identifying mechanism and immediate effect, making it easy to parse.

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 real-time modification tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description does not address return values, error behavior, or limitations. It provides the essential trigger context but leaves out important operational details needed for an agent to use it safely.

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 description adds meaning to the required parameters layer and frame_start by explaining they identify the target object and that frame_start must match live_get_state. The other parameters (sets, move_to) are already described in the schema, so the description supplements the 50% coverage effectively.

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 clearly states that the tool modifies settings or positions of an object in a live project, identifying the object by layer and frame_start. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like live_add_object and live_delete_object by focusing on modification, making its purpose specific.

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 explicitly instructs that the frame_start must match live_get_state's frame_start, implying the prerequisite of calling live_get_state first. It does not mention alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for selecting this tool in a live editing workflow.

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