Hi,
You are not alone in appreciating the difficulty of FrameNet-style annotation. In my view, the richness and complexity of FrameNet is part of what makes it interesting and potentially very powerful for applications. But it also makes it intimidating.
I have never attempted FrameNet annotation myself. But I have talked to the Berkeley FrameNet creators about their annotation practices, and it is quite an intense undertaking. The way they approach annotation there, it involves several weeks of training people who have already studied syntax. The training covers much of the material documented in the 130-page reference manual (
https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/docs/r1.7/book.pdf) on the syntactic and semantic criteria for LUs and FEs. Even after that, it is not hard to find errors in the annotations. Their process for creating new frames, and to a lesser extent adding new LUs to existing frames, requires an order of magnitude more expertise and consideration.
Of course, it's possible that parts of the annotation process could be simplified. The annotation process used by Johannsen et al. in
http://aclweb.org/anthology/D15-1245 was apparently simpler, though it is unclear what this means for the quality of their data relative to data produced at Berkeley. (Some of the FrameNets in other languages also have adapted the annotation process to their needs, but I take it that you're interested in annotating English.)