ae_set_keyframes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context with 'One undo step,' telling the agent the whole call is a single reversible transaction, and the replace semantics imply destructive behavior. It stops short of stating return behavior, permission needs, or error conditions 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?

Front-loaded with the action, then dense parameter semantics, then the undo note. Given the seven parameters and the interpolation vocabulary, the length is justified and there is little filler, though the ease/easeIn detail is packed tightly into one long clause.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone for a 7-parameter mutation tool. It covers purpose, ease semantics and undo, but omits return values, error behavior, and how replace interacts with existing keyframe selection, leaving gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining that influence defaults to 33.3, that 'easy' means Easy Ease, that easeIn/easeOut take {speed, influence} objects, and by listing the spatial-only keys (spatialAutoBezier, roving, inTangent, outTangent) not present in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add keyframes to a layer or effect property') plus a secondary effect ('set their interpolation'), which distinguishes it from the value-setting sibling ae_set_property. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain — you call this when you need to create or re-time keyframes — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus ae_set_property or ae_copy_animation, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The rest of the description is ease syntax, not usage context.

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