add_curve_table_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the on-demand row creation side effect and spells out the returned fields (key_added, created_row, saved), which an agent needs to interpret the result.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in one tight sentence, followed by the auto-create caveat, then the return shape. The structure is efficient and every element earns its place, with only mild verbosity in the enumerated return field list.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by documenting the return object, and annotations cover the mutation/safety profile. The remaining gap is failure behavior and persistence semantics (save_asset invocation) on a mutation tool, but the presence of the 'saved' return field partly signals this.

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%, so the four parameters (curve_table_path, row_name, time, value) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb pair (add or update) and a precise resource: a single key on an existing UCurveTable row's rich curve. It is clearly distinguishable from row-level and table-level siblings such as add_curve_table_row or create_curve_table, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with add_curve_key.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers this is the tool for keying a rich curve, and the auto-create clause hints it is safe to call on a missing row. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over add_curve_table_row, set_anim_curve_keys, or remove_curve_table_key.

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