Frame operations

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it omits everything behavioral: that 'delete' is destructive and irreversible, whether 'rename'/'tag' require an existing name, what happens when an index is out of range, and whether the active frame changes after 'select'. The single added fact — that indices are 0-based — is genuinely useful but far from sufficient for a tool containing a destructive action.

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 compact line that front-loads the operation list and appends the one cross-cutting detail. There is no filler, though the extreme terseness is under-specification rather than true efficiency.

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 an eight-parameter, eight-action mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description leaves major gaps: no action-to-parameter mapping, no destructiveness warning, no statement of what is returned or how the active frame/project defaults interact. It is a menu of operation names rather than an operating manual.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate; it partly does by clarifying that indices are 0-based, which directly affects how 'frame' and 'to' are interpreted. However, it never maps parameters to actions — 'to' is only for reorder, 'all' and 'durationMs' only for set_duration, 'name' for rename, 'tags' for tag — leaving the agent to infer which of the eight parameters are meaningful for the chosen action.

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 enumerates the eight concrete operations (add, duplicate, delete, rename, select, set_duration, tag, reorder) performed on the resource named by the tool, so an agent can immediately tell this is the frame-manipulation tool and not, say, sprite_layer or sprite_timing. It stops short of a prose statement of scope (what a frame belongs to, whether operations are project-scoped), but the verb list is specific enough to be actionable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (active project vs 'project' param, active frame vs 'frame' param), and no routing to alternatives among the many sibling tools such as sprite_animate or sprite_timing. The action list implies capability but never says which action to pick when, or what conditions make an operation invalid.

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