Change animation timing by duplicating keys and scaling to a factor or target duration without altering FPS. Adjust clip speed while keeping frame rate and source keys intact.
Duplicate-only timing change by scale_factor or target_duration_seconds, range optional; FPS unchanged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | analyze | |
| options | No | ||
| operation | No | ||
| object_name | No | ||
| operation_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it operates on duplicates only, leaves FPS unchanged, and offers two timing-change strategies. It does not explain permissions, error behavior, or what happens to the source action, but with annotations present this is solid added context.
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 definition is a single dense sentence with the core operation and invariants front-loaded. Every clause carries information: duplicate-only behavior, two scaling methods, optional range, and FPS preservation.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, this is a five-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, and the description fails to explain the generic schema fields (mode, operation, object_name, operation_id, options) or how they relate to the advertised scale_factor/target_duration inputs. The core behavior is sketched but the invocation surface remains under-specified.
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% for five parameters, so the description must compensate, but it names scale_factor, target_duration_seconds, and range, which are not declared schema properties. It provides no meaning for the actual parameters mode, options, operation, object_name, or operation_id, leaving the agent unable to map the described mechanisms to the schema.
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 states a specific action (timing change / retime) with concrete mechanisms (scale_factor or target_duration_seconds) and a key scope constraint (duplicate-only, FPS unchanged). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as animation_adjust_timing or animation_analyze_timing, so it stops short of a 5.
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 phrase 'Duplicate-only' implies this should be used on duplicated actions rather than original source actions, and 'range optional' hints at scoping. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as animation_adjust_timing for changing timing on non-duplicated actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.