Add a keyframe

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuinely useful behavioral detail: x/y/z accept Molang expressions (default "0") or plain numbers, and the bone can be addressed by group name or uuid. However it says nothing about whether existing keyframes are overwritten, what happens if no animation is supplied, error conditions, or persistence — significant gaps 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse for an 8-parameter tool.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description addresses only about half the parameters and omits how the animation/time context is resolved and whether the write is additive or destructive. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 explains the semantics of x, y, z (Molang expressions with a default) and bone (group name or uuid) and implies the channel enum values, but leaves time, animation, and interpolation (including its default) completely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (keyframe) plus the target (a bone) and the channels affected (rotation/position/scale), which cleanly separates it from the sibling bb_delete_keyframe. It does not name or contrast any alternative tool, so it falls 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus bb_delete_keyframe, bb_set_animation, or bb_create_animation, nor any prerequisite such as needing an existing animation. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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