Transform F-Curve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses manual vs AUTO tangent behavior, the exact transform equation, subframe support, collision/out-of-range rejection before writing, post-write key index changes, and unsupported operations like time reversal and cross-track bake.

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 tight: the action is front-loaded, the formula is compact, and each sentence adds either a behavioral caveat or a limitation. There is no filler or unnecessary restatement of the tool name.

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 13 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential operation, formula, failure behavior, and post-read advice. It could be slightly more explicit about when not to use it relative to edit_fcurve_keys, but it is largely sufficient for correct 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by defining the mathematical relationship between pivot, scale, and offset for both time and value. It also clarifies the semantics of 'selected or all' keys, which maps to key_indices, and reinforces that time reversal is unsupported.

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: 'Retime/scale selected or all REAL keys.' It clearly describes the resource (f-curve keys) and the operation (retime/scale), and adds a precise formula. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling edit_fcurve_keys, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_fcurve_keys or get_fcurve. It implies usage via the transform formula and 'selected or all REAL keys,' but there are no when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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