Set Track Extrapolation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating side effects ('sets pre/post behavior'), preservation behavior ('omitted side is preserved'), and non-actions ('does not duplicate keys, extend the document frame range or bake loops'). It could go further by noting whether changes are reversible or what happens when both sides are omitted, but the core mutation behavior is clearly disclosed.

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, each earning its place: one states the operation and modes, one clarifies preservation semantics, and one lists explicit non-behaviors. The description is front-loaded with the core action and contains no 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?

Given eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the target entity type, lists the available behaviors, and states key exclusions. It could be more complete by explaining how to source/validate the 'REAL track' handle or by clarifying relationship to fcurve-related siblings, but the schema covers the remaining parameter details.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the enum and per-parameter descriptions already provide; it repeats the mode list and the omit-to-preserve behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the semantic load.

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 ('set') and resource ('pre/post behavior for an existing REAL track'), and enumerates the exact modes. It also disambiguates from key-editing siblings by emphasizing 'existing' and noting it does not duplicate keys or bake loops.

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 gives clear context about the target (existing REAL track) and the constraint that omitted sides are preserved, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over set_keyframe, edit_fcurve_keys, or transform_fcurve. Usage context is present but exclusions are only implied through non-goals like 'does not duplicate keys.'

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