Edit an existing .riv file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behaviors: lossless roundtrip, automatic subtree + reference remapping for deletes, preview rendering, and detailed setKeyframes modes. However, it does not mention that outPath defaults to overwriting the source file, nor does it clarify what 'preview' means or what the tool returns.

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 compact yet information-dense, with a clear two-paragraph structure. The first paragraph summarizes the main operations and cross-references riv_dump; the second dives into setKeyframes specifics without redundancy. 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?

The tool is complex with multiple op modes, and the description covers most operational details: op semantics, setKeyframes modes, keyframe format, and using riv_dump for targeting. However, it omits the outPath default behavior and does not describe the return value or preview format, which is notable given no output schema.

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 schema already covers many parameter descriptions, and the description adds significant meaning: rotation is in degrees, setKeyframes mode semantics (replace/add/remove) with default behavior, and that remove ignores value/easing. It also clarifies how index/name/type are used for targeting, going beyond raw schema listings.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: modifying an existing .riv file with four specific operations (set properties, setText, delete, setKeyframes). It contrasts with siblings like riv_create and riv_dump by emphasizing it edits existing files and references riv_dump for finding object indices/names.

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 explicitly tells users to use riv_dump to locate object indices/names, which is a practical prerequisite. It implies this tool is for editing existing files rather than creating or inspecting, but does not list explicit exclusion criteria versus other edit-related siblings.

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