object_properties_set

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds genuine value by disclosing prevalidation of types and unlocked tracks and the static-vs-animated frame behavior, but leaves batch atomicity, partial-failure behavior, and the consequences of destructive writes unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoping constraints, with no filler. Some jargon such as 'unlocked tracks' and 'need keys' is compressed to the point of ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 a destructive multi-item mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition covers the core mechanics but omits error/return shape, default frame behavior, and what create_keys actually does. An agent can attempt the call but cannot predict outcomes for animated or partly-locked change sets.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It conveys that values must match discovered property types and that static channels affect all frames while animated writes need keys, which hints at frame and create_keys. However, it never names the frame or create_keys parameters, and the object/behavior/property/value structure of the changes array is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource: set exact behavior data properties, with the discovery path named (object_inspect). This is far more than a name restatement. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling object_data_set, which an agent could reasonably confuse with setting object/property values.

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?

Usage is implied through 'properties discovered by object_inspect', which signals an inspect-then-set workflow, and 'animated writes need keys' implies a prerequisite for animated channels. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the object_data_set alternative, and no statement about what happens on locked tracks beyond 'prevalidates'.

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