constraint.keyframe_influence

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

Annotations already declare all hints false, indicating a write operation that is not destructive or idempotent, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not mention whether setting influence is reversible, whether it requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur. The 'Risk: standard' line is about reliability, not behavior, so the description contributes nothing beyond the minimal annotation set.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It front-loads no useful information and every sentence is generic metadata. A single sentence naming the command and risk level does not earn its place because it doesn't help the agent decide or invoke the tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema and nested objects, the description is completely inadequate for a tool with 8 parameters and 5 required ones. It lacks a statement of purpose, usage context, parameter explanations, or behavioral notes. An agent cannot safely call this tool based on the current description.

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?

With schema description coverage at 38%, the description must compensate by explaining the key parameters (constraintName, frame, influence, owner, etc.), but it says nothing about them. The agent must rely entirely on the schema, which lacks descriptions for most properties. The description adds zero value to parameter understanding.

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 only repeats the command name 'constraint.keyframe_influence' and adds risk/maturity metadata, but never states what the tool actually does. There is no verb, no resource, and no effect described, so an agent cannot infer that it sets keyframe influence values for a constraint. It is essentially a tautology with added metadata, similar to the 'Process' example.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply,' which is about authentication, not usage context. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, leaving the agent to guess whether this is the right command for keyframing constraint influence.

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