set_scale_to_frame_size

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only conveys that this is a mutation ("Turn on"). It does not say whether the operation is idempotent, whether it is a toggle or one-way set, what happens if it is already enabled, or whether the change is undoable. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, 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?

A single short sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it could have used one more sentence for preconditions without becoming bloated.

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?

No output schema and a single parameter mean the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. However, an agent cannot tell from the description whether the setting applies retroactively, how to verify success, or how failure surfaces — details that must come from the description since there are no annotations.

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 100% and the single nodeId parameter is already documented with its source tools, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond restating that the target is a project item — 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?

States a specific verb+setting ("Turn on 'Scale to Frame Size'") and the target ("a project item"), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like set_clip_transform or set_override_frame_rate. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling for the similar 'Set to Frame Size' concept, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by "for a project item" — the agent infers this acts on bin items, not timeline clips, and the schema points to get_project_items/find_project_items as the id source. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no stated alternative for the timeline-clip equivalent ('Set to Frame Size').

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