add_shape_key

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that keyframing is optional ('optional di-keyframe'), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or the effect of setting keyframes beyond the annotation.

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 short phrase with no unnecessary words, which is concise. However, it is too brief and lacks structure to adequately describe a tool with five parameters, so it does not fully earn 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?

Given the tool's complexity (five parameters), the description is inadequate. It does not explain behavior, relationships between parameters, or what the returned output means (though an output schema exists). The description leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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. It only vaguely references optional keyframing, which maps to the 'keyframe' parameter, but provides no explanation of 'frame', 'value', 'name', or 'object_name'. This is insufficient for a five-parameter tool.

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 'Add shape key' (Tambah shape key), indicating a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_shape_keys' by being an add operation. However, it does not explicitly mention the target object, making it slightly less specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The tool simply states the action without contextual cues.

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