Copy Animation

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds behavioral detail beyond that: it explicitly says target keys are replaced, that easing/tangents/expressions travel with the copy, and how offset/stagger distribute across targets. It does not mention permissions or handling of pre-existing target expressions, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences plus two clarifying clauses, with no filler. Every phrase (easing/tangents, static value, expression, replacing their keys) earns its place. Dense but readable.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the copy semantics, target semantics, and time-staggering behavior an agent needs to invoke it. The 'same comp' constraint lives in the schema, so the description is adequate without repeating it.

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 17%, so the description must carry the load. It explains to_path (same property type), offset_seconds (shifts keys), and stagger_seconds (i-th target gets i*stagger) — three of six params. path, from_layer_id, and to_layer_ids are left to inference from names, but the value-add over the near-empty schema is real.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: copies a property's keys (easing/tangents), static value, and expression to other layers, replacing target keys. An agent can distinguish it from set_keyframes or animate. It stops short of naming any sibling to reinforce the distinction, so it lands at clear-but-not-differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: you copy keys between properties/layers. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or contrast against set_keyframes, edit_keyframes, or stagger, which are the obvious alternatives an agent would weigh.

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