offset_keyframes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It warns that offset applies to 'all keyframes' but does not specify scope (comp-wide vs layer-specific), whether the offset is additive and can move keyframes into negative time or beyond the composition length, whether it preserves temporal easing, or whether it requires the property to already have keyframes. The description is too minimal for a tool that modifies data.

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 short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It front-loads the action and resource, but does not earn its place by adding any behavioral or usage information. It is missing important context that future sentences should provide.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain which parameters are needed to target specific layers or compositions, what the offset range limits are, or what happens when keyframes cross the timeline boundaries. The tool modifies data, so the agent needs more safety and scope information.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage, the description must compensate heavily. There are 6 parameters, but the description provides no additional meaning for any of them. The schema already describes 'offset' as 'Time offset in seconds', but other params like 'property', 'compId', 'layerIndex' have no description in either schema or tool description. The agent is left guessing how to specify which keyframes to offset.

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 tool name 'offset_keyframes' combined with the description 'Offset all keyframes in time' clearly conveys the action (offset) and the resource (all keyframes). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'reverse_keyframes', 'copy_keyframes', or 'scale_keyframe_timing' that also manipulate keyframes but with different actions. However, it does not specify whether the offset applies to all keyframes in a single layer, a comp, or project-wide, which leaves minor ambiguity.

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 vs alternatives such as 'scale_keyframe_timing' or 'reverse_keyframes'. There is no mention of prerequisites, what properties support keyframe offset, or whether this works on selected layers only. An agent would not know when to choose this over other timeline manipulation tools.

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