tracks_retime

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description usefully adds that native key/section metadata is preserved and that moved data/settings are verified, plus hard preconditions — but it never says what happens on partial failure, whether the operation is atomic, or what a rejection looks like.

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 sentences, verb and resource front-loaded, zero filler. The density is appropriate for a constrained mutation tool, though the second sentence is a compressed list of conditions that reads more like a checklist than prose.

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, three-parameter mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers preconditions well but leaves the parameter contract and failure behavior unexplained. An agent could still mis-invoke it by passing mismatched source/target arrays, which the description never warns against.

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 carry parameter meaning and it largely does not. The critical pairing semantics — that source_frames and target_frames are parallel arrays whose i-th elements form a frame mapping, with constraints on length/ordering — are never explained; 'all track keys' and 'fixed endpoints' only hint at these arrays.

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 names a specific verb (retime) and a specific resource class (standalone Basic/Transform tracks), and the word 'standalone' plus 'Constrained rigs are unsupported' implicitly separates it from the sibling character_retime tool. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative, but an agent can still tell which track types this applies to.

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?

Preconditions are stated densely and concretely: unparented objects, all track keys present, fixed endpoints, and no baked/AI intervals or cycles. That is strong when-to-use/when-not guidance, but no alternative tool is named for the cases this one rejects (e.g. constrained rigs), leaving the agent to guess the fallback.

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