set_keyframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the basic action but does not explain key behaviors: whether it overwrites existing keyframes, what happens with null value (delete keyframe?), interpolation implications, or validation of data_path. For a mutation tool, this is a significant 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 concise at two sentences with a line break. It front-loads the main action and then provides parameter hints. No redundant information. Could be slightly restructured for clarity but overall efficient.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand input constraints and results. Missing: what the tool returns (success indicator?), error conditions (invalid data_path, non-existent object), and behavior when `value` is omitted. The description covers only basic semantics without addressing completeness for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so description should compensate. It provides examples for `data_path` and explains that `value` can be list for vectors or float for scalars. However, it does not describe `name` (object reference) or `frame` (units, range), and does not mention that `value` defaults to null (perhaps indicating keyframe removal). Coverage is partial but adds some value over the schema.

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 clearly states the action 'Insert a keyframe on an object property at a specific frame', specifying the verb (insert) and resource (keyframe on object property). It differentiates from generic keyframe tools by noting object property context and providing example data paths. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool `anim_insert_keyframe`, which may overlap in scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `anim_insert_keyframe` or `anim_insert_keyframes_batch`. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., object must exist, must be in animation mode) or when not to use it. The examples are helpful but do not constitute usage direction.

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