set_time_interpolation

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool name and does not disclose side effects (e.g., mutating keyframe interpolation state, requiring an active sequence, timeline refresh, undo behavior). Since this is a 'set' operation, the agent cannot infer destructive risks, permission 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?

The description is a single sentence, so it is very concise, but its content repeats the name of the tool and adds no independent meaning. It does not provide context, input/output details, or examples. It obtains one point for being brief but loses value for being essentially empty.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters and no output schema; however, it is one of a very long list of sibling tools (set_time_position, set_sequence_settings, set_frame_blend, etc.) that share the 'set_*' prefix. The description gives no basis for an agent to understand in which workflow to choose this tool, because it does not mention timeline, selected clips, keyframes, or interpolation type. There may be hidden prerequisites (for example, active sequence), and the missing output schema means no return value is described.

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 declares zero parameters. However, it is malformed (using propertyNames as a schema keyword), although with param count 0 the description is not required to document parameters. Thus the baseline of 4 applies plus full marks for no params. Yet the malformed property name does not affect execution. The schema also strangely allows additional properties with an empty-object schema. So with 0 params, high score is warranted. But note the malformed schema is not the description's responsibility. The description carries no semantic burden. Baseline=4.

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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: set time interpolation' is tautological and vague. It restates the tool name without explaining what 'set time interpolation' actually does (e.g., set keyframe interpolation mode between keyframes). It does not specify the resource or behavior beyond the name. Sibling tools like set_keyframe_interpolation, set_clip_speed, and set_frame_blend exist in the same domain, but there is no distinguishing information. A specific verb+resource is present, but no semantic detail.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There are no preconditions, no scenario descriptions, no examples. The phrase 'expanded operation' is meaningless context. Sibling tools include set_sequence_settings, set_clip_speed, set_keyframe_interpolation, etc., but there is no information about selection or exclusion.

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