set_keyframe_interpolation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it sets interpolation mode, implying a mutation, but doesn't say what happens if no keyframes exist, whether it affects all keyframes or a specific frame, or any side effects on existing animation. It also doesn't mention error handling or return values.

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, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. It is concise and wastes no words. However, it is so brief that it omits essential details, making it slightly under-specified for an agent, though conciseness itself is not a flaw.

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 the tool's mutation nature, 4 parameters, and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the scope (all keyframes vs. a specific frame), the valid interpolation modes, or the behavior when the data path is invalid. Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to give agents enough to call the tool correctly with confidence.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters. The term 'data path' is used but not defined, and there is no mention of object_name, frame, or mode. The description provides no added meaning beyond what the schema already shows (which is just parameter names and types with no 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) and the resource (interpolation mode on keyframes for a data path). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like set_keyframe_handle_type, which targets a different property. However, it doesn't mention the frame parameter or the allowed modes, which could make the agent unsure of scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like insert_keyframe or set_keyframe_handle_type. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., keyframes must already exist) or any conditions that would make another tool more appropriate. No contrast with siblings is given.

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