Set frame timing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not explain mutation side effects, whether existing timing is overwritten, precedence when multiple timing parameters are supplied, or what the tool returns. The 10–12 fps recommendation adds some useful context but leaves critical behavior undisclosed.

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 front-loaded, compact, and every part contributes: the three modes define scope, the pixel-art recommendation adds context, and the example clarifies usage. There is no filler.

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 tool with five parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits parameter precedence, units, per-frame key semantics, active-project behavior, and the effect on existing frame timing.

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 only 20%, so the description needs to compensate. It mentions fps, duration, and per-frame durations, but does not clarify the difference between the `perFrame` object and the `durations` array, does not state units for `durationMs`, and does not explain how `project` interacts with the timing parameters.

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 states a specific action and resource: setting frame timing. It also names three supported modes (constant fps, constant duration, per-frame durations) and gives an example. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling animation-related tools such as sprite_animate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 lists the available timing modes but gives no guidance on when to choose fps versus durationMs versus perFrame/durations. It also does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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