set_keyframe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether an existing keyframe at that frame is overwritten, what happens with an invalid node_path/parm_name, or whether the operation is undoable — notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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 single-sentence summary is front-loaded and appropriately short, but the following Args block spends six lines re-stating parameter names without earning its space. Reasonably sized, low information density.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too thin: it omits required-vs-optional behavior for slope/accel, return/error behavior, and the effect on pre-existing keyframes.

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 must compensate, but its arg list largely restates parameter names tautologically ('node_path: Node path', 'frame: Frame number'). Only 'slope: Tangent slope' adds real meaning (units/derivative semantics) and 'accel' is barely clarified; nothing explains the optional status or defaults of slope/accel.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — set a keyframe on a parameter — and the word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling set_keyframes. It is clear, but it never names the sibling tool (set_keyframes, delete_keyframe) explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 set_keyframes (batch), delete_keyframe, or get_keyframes. No prerequisites (must the node exist, must the parameter be keyable) or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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