Set the interpolation type (Bezier, Linear, or Constant) for all keyframes on an object's channel to control animation easing between keyframes.
Set keyframe interpolation for all keyframes on a channel. Types: BEZIER, LINEAR, CONSTANT.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object | Yes | ||
| data_path | Yes | ||
| interpolation | No | BEZIER |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation idempotentHint=true already covers repeat safety. The description adds useful scope context: it affects ALL keyframes on a channel, implying bulk overwrite of existing interpolation. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing keyframes) or what happens if no keyframes exist, but it does not contradict annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no padding. The primary action is front-loaded and the allowed types are listed immediately after. Every word contributes essential information.
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 simple setter with an output schema present, the description covers the core operation and the interpolation parameter. It is incomplete on object/data_path semantics and lacks any usage guidance relative to siblings, leaving modest gaps for an agent to infer.
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 must carry the burden. It provides the valid enum values for 'interpolation', which is helpful. However, the two required parameters 'object' and 'data_path' are left entirely unexplained; the agent is not told what format to use for object names or how to specify a channel via data_path.
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 ('Set'), a precise resource ('keyframe interpolation for all keyframes on a channel'), and clarifies the allowed values (BEZIER, LINEAR, CONSTANT). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like set_keyframe or set_keyframes, which deal with keyframe values rather than interpolation type.
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 usage context is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for changing interpolation type on a channel. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, such as set_keyframe for individual keyframes, or any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.