set_interpolation

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

No annotations are provided (destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool sets interpolation type, and the args are listed. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether it affects all keyframes or only selected ones), but since it's a property setter, it's relatively straightforward. Returns a confirmation dict, which is stated. This is adequate for a simple setter, but could be improved by noting that it modifies an existing keyframe.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose and args, plus a returns line. No fluff. The Args section is well-structured. Every sentence adds value.

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 there is no output schema (but context says has output schema? Actually context says 'Has output schema: true' but the provided schema does not include output schema. However, the description mentions 'Returns: Confirmation dict.' That is somewhat incomplete without specifying what keys the dict contains. However, for a simple setter, a confirmation dict is typical. The tool has 3 parameters, low complexity, so the description is mostly complete. Lacking output details but not critical.

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 input schema parameter descriptions are minimal (only titles). The description adds value by explaining each parameter: object_name, data_path, and interpolation with allowed values listed. Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description compensates well. The interpolation parameter lists the allowed string values, which is helpful for the agent. However, data_path is not explained further (e.g., format or examples).

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 tool sets the interpolation type for keyframes on a property. It specifies the verb 'set' and the resource 'interpolation type for keyframes'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like insert_keyframe (which adds keyframes) and set_handle_type (which sets handle type, not interpolation).

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 explains what the tool does and lists parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't indicate that this is for changing an existing keyframe's interpolation, not for creating new keyframes. Siblings like insert_keyframe are related but no guidance is provided.

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