Clarifying UX copy for Asset Animations (collision mask toggles)

[LuniMoon]

Based on the Forum Topic https://forum.gdevelop.io/t/collision-mask-same-mask-for-all-sprites-should-be-named-same-frames-of-animation-to-reflect-naming-in-events-sheet/49538

The core team had internal conversations regarding the "proper" naming of animation lexicon ("animation" vs "animation status", "frames" vs "sprites") during the Filters on the Asset Store (Animation: status & frames)
These conclusions weren't applied to the rest of the UI. Specially on the Collision masks dialog.

The Problem:

The interaction on the collision dialog can be hard to digest (apply collision mask to X) because of the comprehension of the scale and the scope of activating the toggle.
This human machine interaction isn't simplified by the UX copy (which makes concepts harder to understand):

Besides that, the user ZeroX pointed that Events use another copy too:

Suggested Action:

• Replace the wording "sprites" for "Frames"

Extra UX mile

• The "share" notion could be replaced by the "apply" notion: "share" could have an implication that one frame has to be assigned as the "source of truth" that will share their attributes with the rest. "Apply" implies that a single collision will impact the other elements so there is no need to clarify which element is "the source of truth".
• If possible, include the name of the animation, the frame number, the object name and the animation quantity on the toggle copy to minimise misunderstandings. Example: "Apply 'Frame6' collision mask to all '5' animations of 'Object'" and "Apply 'Frame6' collision mask to the '8' frames on 'Animation4'.