set_interpolation

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the operation applies to 'all keyframes on a channel' and enumerates the valid interpolation types. This clarifies the scope and effect of the tool, which is useful for an agent. No contradiction with annotations; idempotency is consistent with setting a value.

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 very concise: two short sentences that state the core action and list the allowed types. It is front-loaded, with no filler or redundant information. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage scenario. It states the action, the target (all keyframes on a channel), and acceptable interpolation values. It does not mention default behavior (though 'interpolation' schema has a default) or error cases, but for this type of setter tool, the description is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does so for the 'interpolation' parameter by listing valid values (BEZIER, LINEAR, CONSTANT), but it does not explain 'object' or 'data_path.' The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the description falls short of fully clarifying the required identifiers and how to construct data_path. It adds some value but not enough for full coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Set keyframe interpolation for all keyframes on a channel.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_keyframe and get_keyframes by focusing on interpolation rather than keyframe placement or retrieval. The addition of 'Types: BEZIER, LINEAR, CONSTANT' further clarifies the scope.

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 when to use the tool (when needing to change keyframe interpolation) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use this instead of set_keyframe for interpolation' or 'not applicable to objects without animation data.' This is adequate but not exemplary.

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