Set Keyframe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the automatic creation of CTrack on first use and explains dtype inference. However, it does not mention error conditions, return values, or whether the operation is idempotent (though 'update' implies it is). The side effect of creating a track is disclosed, but more details on failure modes would improve 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 two sentences long, with no redundant information. The first sentence clearly states the core action, and the second adds essential details about parameter types and automatic track creation. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality well, including dtype handling and automatic CTrack creation. However, it does not explain the structure of the handle parameter (though schema does) or address what the tool returns (e.g., success indication). For a mutation tool with no output schema, these details would be helpful.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the context of dtype inference and the types of parameters supported (scalar and vector), which goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions. This helps an agent understand how the parameters relate to each other.

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 verb ('Create or update') and the resource ('a single keyframe on a resolved entity's parameter'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_keyframes (read) and delete_keyframe (remove) by focusing on creation/update and mentioning automatic CTrack creation, which is unique among siblings.

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 guidance on parameter types (scalar and vector) and explains that dtype can be inferred or overridden, which helps in deciding when to use the override. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_params) or prerequisite conditions like entity resolution.

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