set_property_track_keyframe_count

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true. The description adds real context beyond them by stating that existing keys are resampled to evenly spaced positions carrying a single default value, i.e. existing distinct values are overwritten (destructive), and repeats yield the same result (idempotent). It does not mention permission/auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

Front-loads the behavioral sentence and follows with a compact Returns block. Since there is no declared output schema, the Returns block carries its weight and is not redundant. Slightly dense but every element earns its place.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers both behavior (resample to N keys) and the return payload (including applied/saved/save_error), which compensates for the missing output schema. It could say more about which section is targeted and when to prefer this over adding keys individually.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, including the 0/1/>=2 key_count behavior. The description restates key_count and default_value usage (N keys, evenly spaced, same value) without adding syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('Resize') and resource ('a property track's first section') with precise semantics: exactly N keys, evenly spaced from the section start, all sharing one default value. This clearly separates it from sibling single-key tools like add_keyframe_to_property_track, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 implied by the behavior (resize a track to N evenly spaced keys), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative against the many other keyframe/track tools in the sibling list. Adequate, but leaves routing to inference.

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