Edit Keyframes

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

Annotations already declare this as a destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the description does not need to carry the full safety burden. It adds useful behavioral details such as half-frame key matching, 1-based indexing, set creating or updating a key, move preserving every setting, spatial tangents being relative to the key, and returning the edited keys. It does not explicitly describe delete behavior, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 dense but front-loaded, with no filler. Each sentence conveys operational meaning about scope, key addressing, action semantics, or return behavior.

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?

For a complex nested keyframe-editing tool with no output schema, the description covers core behavior and return values well. However, it omits explicit semantics for the delete action and several nested edit fields, leaving some gaps that the schema alone must resolve.

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?

Although top-level schema coverage is low, the description adds important meaning for core parameters: key addressing by t or index, the half-frame tolerance, set/create/update semantics for t and v, move preserving settings, and spatial_in/out being relative motion-path tangents. It does not cover every nested field such as interp, roving, ease, or auto_bezier, but it substantially compensates for the most ambiguous edit parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: editing single keys on one property while leaving other keys untouched. This clearly distinguishes it from bulk alternatives such as set_keyframes and from get_keyframes, which is named for listing.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: editing individual keys without affecting the rest, and points to get_keyframes for listing all keys. It does not explicitly state when to prefer set_keyframes or other siblings, but the usage context is clear.

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