Edit F-Curve Keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers substantial behavioral detail: left/right are signed offsets, manual takeover splits handles and disables several tangent options, locks are respected, the batch is preflighted, and updates are undo-grouped. This is far beyond what the schema alone reveals.

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 dense but every clause earns its place by adding a constraint, a behavioral caveat, or an exclusion. The main action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequiaites, concurrency, batch semantics, undo grouping, and exclusions. It tells the agent what to read first, what behavior to expect, and what the tool will not do, making it sufficiently complete for safe invocation.

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 86%, so the baseline is already 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by clarifying non-obvious semantics: left/right are signed offsets rather than absolute positions, manual mode disables automatic/clamp/auto-weight/overshoot/tangent-lock, and key_index refers to a fresh get_fcurve snapshot. This elevates it to a 4.

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 opens with a specific action and target: 'Edit existing REAL keys' and enumerates what can be edited (values, interpolation modes, tangents). It further distinguishes the tool from siblings through explicit exclusions: 'Does not create keys or edit coupled XYZ/time tracks.'

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?

It gives clear preconditions and concurrency guidance: 'Read get_fcurve first' and 'avoid simultaneous scene edits.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or provide a when-not-to-use branch, so it stops short of a 5.

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