tracks_set_interpolation

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

The annotations already declare this is a destructive mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds useful context that each section's key metadata is preserved and that neighboring motion should be inspected afterward. It does not state whether the change is reversible, how it applies across multiple tracks/frames, or what happens when a requested key is missing.

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 compact sentences with the action front-loaded and the follow-up guidance clearly secondary. Every phrase contributes useful information without filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description provides minimum viable context: it identifies the scope, notes metadata preservation, and recommends verification. It still leaves significant gaps around frame/track semantics, interpolation effects, and failure behavior.

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 needs to compensate, but it only vaguely refers to 'track keys' and does not explain the roles of tracks, frames, or the interpolation enum values. The parameter names and schema types provide basic structure, but the description adds little semantic meaning beyond them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: changing interpolation at existing track keys. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as tracks_set_keys or tracks_retime.

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 phrase 'existing track keys' implies a precondition that keys must already be present, and 'Inspect neighboring motion afterward' gives post-use guidance. However, there is no explicit comparison with alternative tools or statement of when not to use this one.

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