animation.fcurve_edit

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

The description discloses only risk and maturity levels, which are unrelated to behavioral traits like side effects, data modification, or reversibility. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc., but the description adds no meaningful context about what the tool actually does to the scene, such as whether it modifies keyframes, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. Since annotations are all false, the description carries the full burden, which it fails to meet.

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 extremely short, which could be considered concise, but it is underspecified rather than efficiently conveying necessary information. It front-loads the command name but provides no functional content. This is under-specification, not appropriate conciseness, so a score of 2 reflects the lack of substance.

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 (13 parameters, output schema present) and the need to differentiate from many sibling animation tools, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks any explanation of the tool's purpose, usage, parameter meanings, or expected behavior. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly based on the description alone, even with the schema, because it doesn't know what the operation does.

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?

The description provides no information about any of the 13 parameters. Schema coverage is only 23% (descriptions exist for _requestId, _authorization, _transactionId), and the description does not compensate for the remaining parameters. Without any explanation of dataPath, name, timeScale, interpolation, etc., an agent has no help understanding their semantics beyond the raw schema types.

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 merely restates the tool name ('PartMe Blender Harness command `animation.fcurve_edit`') and adds generic metadata (risk, maturity, requirements). It does not state what the tool actually does, such as editing animation F-curves, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like blender_animation_fcurve_clean or blender_animation_insert_keyframe. This is a tautology, offering no functional clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Requirements: Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' but that is a generic policy note, not usage context. It fails to indicate typical use cases, preconditions, or exclusions.

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