set_keyframe_advanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention that this modifies a keyframe (likely an undoable action), any potential side effects, or whether it requires a valid layer/composition. The description is too sparse to convey deeper behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 sentence with minimal waste, but it is under-specified. It is concise but not structured to provide useful information beyond a headline. It earns points for brevity but loses for not using the space to add value.

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 complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, multiple easing controls) and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship between easing types and ease objects, nor the required context (layer, composition). The description covers only the basic purpose, leaving many gaps.

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 9%, meaning most of the 11 parameters are undocumented. The description adds no parameter details beyond 'easing options', but doesn't explain how easing parameters (inType, outType, inEase, outEase) interplay or the meaning of 'time' and 'value' beyond basic types. Since schema coverage is very low, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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?

Description states 'Set a keyframe with easing options', clearly indicating the verb (set) and resource (keyframe) with a specific focus on easing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'set_keyframe' or other keyframe manipulation tools, but the 'advanced' and easing focus imply distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over 'set_keyframe' or 'apply_easy_ease'. Given many keyframe-related siblings, the lack of explicit alternatives or contexts makes it ambiguous. No mention of prerequisites like needing an existing layer or composition.

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