set_keyframe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without explaining whether existing keyframes are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the track or animation does not exist. No safety or state-changing context is provided beyond the verb 'set'.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. It is not overly verbose, but it is also under-specified for the tool's complexity. The brevity is good, but it could include more helpful detail while remaining concise.

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 tool has 5 required parameters, a nested object value, and no output schema or annotations. The one-sentence description is completely inadequate for understanding the full context, such as the structure of the 'value' object, how to identify the animation/track, or the expected effect of the operation. It fails to provide enough context 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter explanation. The parameter names (library_path, anim_name, track_idx, time, value) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the 'value' parameter is an object with unknown structure, and the relationship between library_path, anim_name, and track_idx is not clarified. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Set a keyframe') and the resource ('on a track'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, none of which mention keyframing. The inclusion of 'track' aligns with the parameter track_idx, giving a clear purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as having an animation library, animation, or track created first, nor does it point to related tools like add_track or add_animation. The context of animation editing is implied but not stated.

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