set_bezier_easing

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state that it applies to 'all keyframes' and uses 'auto-clamped handles', which conveys important behavior. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., object must already have keyframes) or side effects (e.g., it overwrites existing interpolation). The description is not misleading but is incomplete for a tool with no annotation cover.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and an Args section. The main action is front-loaded ('Set bezier interpolation...'), followed by the effect. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description covers the core action and effect. However, it lacks details about prerequisites (existing keyframes), behavior when no keyframes exist, and any return value (no output schema). While an agent might infer these from the description, explicit clarification would improve completeness. The description is adequate but not rich.

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?

The input schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description provides a minimal clarification: 'object_name: Target object.' This adds some meaning but does not specify what kind of object is expected, whether it must have existing keyframes, or any constraints. For a single parameter, the description is barely adequate but does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 specific action: 'Set bezier interpolation with auto-clamped handles on all keyframes.' It also explains the effect (smooth ease-in and ease-out), which makes the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like set_interpolation, though the 'bezier' and 'auto-clamped' details make it distinct.

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 implies when to use this tool by noting it produces smooth ease-in/ease-out on all keyframes, giving context on its intended effect. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as set_interpolation, which might be more appropriate for other interpolation types. There is no guidance on selecting between this and sibling animation tools.

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