set_keyframe_interpolation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the optional frame range restriction, but offers no information about side effects (e.g., whether unchanged keyframes are ignored), failure modes, idempotence, or any prerequisites. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 14-word sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and the key scope modifier. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description leaves out nearly all essential context. An agent cannot infer the meaning of object_name, data_path, interpolation, or how frame_start/frame_end interact with matching. This is inadequate for correct invocation.

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%, and the description adds no explanation for any parameter. It only mentions 'matching keyframes' and 'frame range' but does not clarify that object_name and data_path are required to match keyframes, nor explain the interpolation enum values. The description fails to compensate for the sparsely documented 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Change'), a clear resource ('interpolation for matching keyframes'), and an optional scope ('frame range'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like insert_keyframe and delete_keyframe, which deal with keyframe creation/deletion rather than interpolation changes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. It simply describes what the tool does without contextualizing it among the many animation-related siblings.

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