setLayerKeyframe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Set a keyframe,' implying a write operation that modifies the project, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as permission requirements, whether the operation is reversible, or potential side effects like overwriting existing keyframes. This gap is significant for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Set a keyframe') and specifies the target without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about behavioral traits, usage context, and return values, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description does not provide enough contextual information for safe and effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. However, since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate for any gaps but also does not detract from the existing documentation.

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 action ('Set a keyframe') and specifies the target ('for a specific layer property at a given time'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'setLayerExpression' or 'test-animation', which might involve similar layer operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing composition or layer, and does not mention sibling tools like 'setLayerExpression' for expression-based animations or 'test-animation' for broader animation tasks. This omission leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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