cascadeur_set_keys

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

Annotations already signal that the tool is destructive and not read-only, so the description does not need to restate that. It does add the useful constraint that keys are set only on 'explicit unlocked tracks', which is behavior beyond what annotations provide. However, it does not explain failure modes or whether existing key data is overwritten.

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 a single sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. The phrase 'allocate animation data' is slightly obscure, but overall the structure is efficient and clear enough for domain users.

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 there is no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a destructive mutation tool with three parameters, the description is too thin. It does not explain frames, interpolation, prerequisites, or side effects, leaving an agent under-informed 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It references 'tracks' but does not explain what the frames array represents, what the interpolation enum controls, or how the parameters interact. This is only a partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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: 'Add or update keys' on tracks, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cascadeur_remove_keys and cascadeur_set_interpolation. The qualifier 'on explicit unlocked tracks' adds useful scope, though 'allocate animation data' is somewhat vague.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cascadeur_set_pose, cascadeur_animate_transforms, or cascadeur_set_interpolation. The phrase 'explicit unlocked tracks' implies an eligibility condition but does not clarify when an agent should choose this tool over related ones.

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