Set Document Settings

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

The description explicitly notes that FPS and frame range are 'mirrored onto the active render data', which is a behavioral trait beyond the bare verb 'update'. However, annotations are empty, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose error behavior, reversibility, or what happens if invalid values are provided (beyond schema constraints). The mirroring note adds value but does not cover the broader behavioral expectations for a mutation tool.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Update document-level settings') and lists the affected fields in a colon-delimited list. The mirroring note is appended as a concise aside. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing; every word 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 tool with 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves several gaps: it does not state that an open document is a prerequisite (though sibling tools like open_document exist), nor what happens if no parameters are provided (likely a no-op), nor any error conditions or atomicity guarantees. The description covers the core operation but lacks the context an agent needs to safely invoke it in a real workflow.

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 100%, meaning every parameter already has an explanatory description. The tool description merely lists the parameter names without adding any additional meaning (e.g., relationships between parameters or constraints). Since the schema handles parameter semantics, the description adds no incremental value, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool updates 'document-level settings' and enumerates the specific fields (fps, frame range, current frame, active camera, active take). This is a precise verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_params or set_transform, which target object-level parameters rather than document-wide settings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., an open document). It simply describes what the tool does without context about when it is appropriate to invoke it, or what conditions must hold (such as having a document loaded). The list of sibling tools includes many setter tools, but no differentiation or exclusion is offered.

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