cavalry_keyframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal whether setting a keyframe overwrites existing ones, affects only the specified attribute, or requires particular layer types or permissions. This lack of detail for a mutation tool is a significant gap.

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 that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. It immediately conveys the essential operation without fluff.

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?

Despite the schema fully documenting parameters, the description lacks context about side effects, return values, or error behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, a simple statement of intent is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate invocation outcomes.

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 documentation covers 100% of the parameters, including an example for the attributes object. The description adds minimal meaning beyond restating that it sets a keyframe, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (set), the resource (a keyframe on a layer attribute), and the specific condition (at a specific frame). This effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like cavalry_set_attribute and cavalry_set_current_frame, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage for keyframe animation but does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives such as cavalry_set_attribute. No exclusions or conditions are stated, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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