quantize_animation_keyframes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not state whether the file is modified in-place, whether a backup is created, or whether the operation is reversible. It does usefully disclose that animation_name is currently a no-op, but the core mutation semantics are under-specified.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a focused Args breakdown. The 'Stepped Framerate Quantizer' label is slightly redundant with the next sentence, but overall every section is short and purposeful.

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?

The description covers all parameters and benefits from an output schema, so return value details are unnecessary. However, for a file-modifying tool with no annotations, the lack of explicit statement about in-place overwriting, backup behavior, or failure modes leaves an important gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it safely.

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 Args block is essential and does compensate: file_path is clarified as an absolute path, target_fps gets framerate examples and defaults, and animation_name is explicitly labeled as reserved. It could add more constraints or edge-case behavior, but the parameters are meaningfully explained.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: rounding keyframe timestamps inside .tscn/.tres files to fixed frame intervals. The 12fps/24fps examples add concrete context and help distinguish it from sibling animation tools like set_animation_interpolation_mode.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: quantizing animation keyframes to a stepped framerate, with explicit anime/film examples. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is clear enough.

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