cascadeur_set_interpolation

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true), so the description adds value by warning that changing interpolation can affect overshoot and intermediate poses. This gives the agent a concrete expectation of visual or pose-level side effects beyond the annotation.

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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and a safety-oriented verification note after. Every word adds value and there is no filler.

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 simple 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action, the constraint that keys must already exist, and a verification step. It omits details like behavior when keys are missing, return values, or error cases, but the destructive hint and verification advice cover the most important operational context.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It maps 'interpolation' to outgoing interpolation and hints at 'existing keys' for frames, but it does not explain what 'tracks' refers to or clarify the relationship between tracks, frames, and existing keys. The description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set outgoing interpolation at existing keys.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cascadeur_set_keys, which likely sets key values rather than interpolation modes.

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 phrase 'at existing keys' provides clear context that this tool modifies already-created keys rather than creating new ones. The follow-up instruction to 'Verify overshoot and intermediate poses' gives practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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