Create keyframe animation

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context: it mentions that 'an Execute DAT interpolates the curve each frame' and describes easing and looping. However, it does not fully explain scope of side effects (e.g., whether a new DAT is created or existing node modified) or how syncing to timeline works. Still, it adds meaningful detail beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, efficiently covering purpose, contrast, usage, and mechanics. It front-loads the main function and then provides context, with no extraneous words.

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 moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, and when to prefer it. It could mention that keyframes must be ordered or that loop defaults to true (though schema covers these). Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a tool with well-documented schema and annotations.

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 high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the animation uses 'an Execute DAT' and that easing can be 'linear or smooth'. It also reinforces that the curve 'interpolates between them in order'. This provides implementation context not present in schema descriptions.

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 creates animated keyframe curves synced to the timeline, specifically distinguishing itself from 'animate_parameter's LFO' by targeting 'choreographed moves' instead of continuous oscillation. The verb 'animate' and resource 'parameters along a keyframed curve' are specific, and the mention of 'beyond animate_parameter's LFO' differentiates it from siblings.

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 contrasts with 'animate_parameter's LFO', advising use for 'choreographed moves (a build-up, a drop, a sweep) rather than continuous oscillation.' It also gives direct usage guidance: 'Give time/value keyframes and the targets.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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