insert_keyframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the primary action (set value and insert keyframe) without detailing side effects, such as whether existing keyframes are overwritten, how the index parameter affects behavior, or error conditions. It also does not specify whether the operation requires any specific scene or animation context. This is minimal disclosure 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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose before mentioning data paths. There is no unnecessary verbiage or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the information it contains, though it could benefit from a more structured breakdown.

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 tool with six parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the role of index (beyond default -1), what frame means in the timeline, or the interpolation choices. It also omits any mention of prerequisites or consequences (e.g., whether the object must be selected). The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 by explaining parameter meanings. It only partially clarifies data_path (by listing examples) and hints at value ('optional property value'), but it does not explain frame, index, interpolation, or object_name. Given six parameters, this leaves most parameters underspecified, forcing the agent to infer or guess.

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 action ('insert a keyframe') and identifies the target resource ('optional property value' on 'data paths'). It gives concrete examples of data paths (location, rotation_euler, scale, custom properties), which helps clarify the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling key_pose_bone, which likely targets bone properties, leaving some ambiguity about whether this is for object or bone keyframing.

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 context by listing relevant data paths (location, rotation_euler, scale), suggesting it is intended for object properties rather than bone properties. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like key_pose_bone or set_keyframe_interpolation, nor any when-not conditions. The usage is only inferred, not stated.

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