Set Keyframe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses create-or-update semantics, supported scalar and vector-component channel types, and the important side effect that the CTrack is created on first use. It does not describe overwrite behavior or return values, but for a single-keyframe write tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 with no filler: purpose, parameter-addressing strategy, and side-effect disclosure are each given one sentence. The most important information is front-loaded, and nothing is unnecessarily repeated from the schema.

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?

The schema already covers parameters, handle selection, units, and defaults in detail. The description adds operation scope, path-vs-legacy guidance, supported channel types, and CTrack creation. It does not describe the return value or explicitly contrast against edit_fcurve_keys, but for this tool's complexity the definition remains largely complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual grouping by contrasting full DescID paths with legacy param_id/component and clarifying that vector values are set per individual component. This goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions, though most parameter detail is already present in the schema.

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?

Description begins with a specific action, 'Create or update one keyframe', clearly identifying the operation and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_keyframes, delete_keyframe, and edit_fcurve_keys by emphasizing single-keyframe mutation. Additional detail about DescID paths and legacy param_id/component further clarifies what the tool does.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: to create or update one keyframe. It also provides practical guidance on choosing between a full DescID path and legacy param_id/component. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, 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.