set_keyframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('set') which implies mutation, but does not explain what happens if a keyframe already exists, what 'frame number' refers to, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to give the agent confidence about behavior.

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 clear sentence with no redundancy, which is structurally sound and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity—conciseness should not come at the cost of missing essential information. It is acceptable but not exemplar.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain the meaning of the parameters, the coordinate system, keyframe interpolation behavior, or any return value. An agent cannot use this tool correctly with only this description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but does not. It only hints at 'frame number' (likely the 'time' parameter) and 'object' (likely 'handle') but provides no explanation for pos, rot, or scale. The agent cannot determine what these arrays represent or how they relate to keyframe interpolation.

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 verb ('set') and resource ('animation keyframe on an object') and mentions the frame number as the time context. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic mutation tools like set_property or transform, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative. A 4 is appropriate because it is clear but does not differentiate among the animation-specific siblings.

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 like transform or set_property. It does not state prerequisites, such as whether the object must already exist or whether the keyframe replaces existing ones. With no exclusions or alternatives, the agent is left to infer usage.

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