scale_keyframe_timing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the high-level purpose ('scale keyframe timing'), but omits critical details: whether the operation is destructive, how anchorTime affects behavior, what happens to keyframe values vs positions, idempotency, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 that front-loads the action. It contains no fluff, earning a 4, but could expand slightly to improve other dimensions without becoming verbose.

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 7 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema. The description does not explain key aspects: what 'scaling' means in terms of keyframe time distribution, the role of anchorTime, or the requirement for a qualified property. For this complexity level, the description is under-specified and incomplete.

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 only 29% (2 of 7 parameters documented). The description adds minimal value: it refers to scaling as 'speed up or slow down', which maps to the 'scale' parameter, but fails to clarify the other 5 undocumented parameters (compId, compName, property, layerName, layerIndex). With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'Scale keyframe timing (speed up or slow down)' uses a specific verb ('scale') and resource ('keyframe timing'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling keyframe manipulation tools (e.g., offset_keyframes, reverse_keyframes) by focusing on timing scaling, which is a unique operation in the set.

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 offset_keyframes, reverse_keyframes, or set_keyframe. It does not specify the required context (e.g., existing keyframes on a property), prerequisites, or when scaling is inappropriate, leaving the agent without decision-making criteria.

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