set_keyframes

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 only states that it inserts multiple keyframes and mentions efficiency, but does not disclose important side effects such as whether existing keyframes are overwritten, what happens on invalid frames, or prerequisites like existing animation data. This is a significant gap 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 two sentences and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word earns its place: it states the action, the keyframe entry format, and the advantage over an alternative. No padding or redundancy.

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 batch operation with three parameters and an output schema, the description provides enough to get started but leaves out important context such as error behavior, overwrite semantics, and parameter formats for 'object' and 'data_path.' It is minimally viable but has clear gaps, aligning with a 3.

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. It explicitly defines the 'keyframes' parameter structure: '{frame: int, value: float|list}' with an example. However, it provides no meaning for the 'object' and 'data_path' parameters, leaving them entirely unexplained. This partial compensation warrants a midpoint score.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Batch insert multiple keyframes.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'set_keyframe' by emphasizing the batch nature, making it unambiguous what this tool does.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'More efficient than calling set_keyframe repeatedly.' This directly compares to an alternative tool, but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for single keyframe insertion), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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